Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 31 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Co-operation

Ms Rosie Winterton: What action he is taking to promote better co-operation between health authorities and social services. [34369]

Caroline Flint: What action he is taking to promote better co-operation between health authorities and social services. [34375]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Since taking office, my ministerial colleagues and I have devoted a great deal of effort to promoting a closer and better working relationship between health authorities and social services. The fruits of that effort were apparent this winter, in the brilliant success of both the health service and social services in dealing with emergencies.

Ms Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of Home Start, which has—through close co-operation between health authorities and social services, and with the help of volunteers—assisted many families in times of crisis? Is he aware that, in my own constituency, Doncaster Home Start is currently helping 54 families, and that 36 families are on the waiting list? Will he tell the House what assistance the Government will give to that very worthwhile organisation?

Mr. Dobson: Home Start is a splendid voluntary organisation, operating on the boundary of the national health service and social services. Specifically, it provides help to families. The Government recognised Home Start's valuable contribution by deciding to provide it with a grant of over £1 million.

Caroline Flint: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, compared with the national average, Doncaster health

authority has a very good overall record on reducing its waiting lists? In the light of last week's pledge by the Government—to reduce waiting lists by the end of April 1999, so that they are lower than they were under the Tories—does he agree that Doncaster's partnership between the health authority, social services and other parties has demonstrated that such partnerships are crucial in reducing waiting lists?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly share the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, and think that the most precious resources in the national health service are the million people who work daily to make the service a success. I am determined to take more notice of staff than the previous Government did. I also want to seek their advice. I am therefore taking unprecedented action by writing to everyone working in the health service, inviting them to let me have their ideas for improving the service. I have always believed that, if one wants to improve the way in which jobs are done, the first people to ask are those doing the work, rather than collections of overpaid management consultants.

Mrs. Roe: Is it not a contradiction for the Government to speak glibly of co-operation, whereas coercion is the method that they have chosen for dragooning general practitioners into primary care groups?

Mr. Dobson: We are not dragooning anyone.

Mr. Pickles: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the important part of the partnership is between GPs, local hospitals and social services? Does he believe that, in rural areas, that relationship is extended by including cottage hospitals, which provide services over a wider area and deal with cases that would otherwise clog major hospitals? If the right hon. Gentleman is currently consulting staff, may I communicate a message from staff of the Ongar War Memorial hospital in my constituency? They would like that hospital to remain open, so that it can continue playing an effective part in providing care and medicine in a rural area.

Mr. Dobson: I certainly bear in mind all the representations that are made, but it comes ill from the mouth of someone who supported the previous Government to talk about the threat to cottage hospitals, when that Government carried out an 18-year search-and-destroy operation on cottage hospitals.

Mr. White: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the partnership between local authorities and health authorities has led to initiatives such as NHS Direct, which he launched successfully in my area yesterday? Does he agree that that kind of partnership deal is the way forward for the health service?

Mr. Dobson: Certainly. NHS Direct is a nurse-based helpline that will offer help and advice to people who, in the middle of the night, might be bothered about their own health or that of their child. In the pilot areas, people will be able to ring a 24-hour, nurse-based service for advice or reassurance or, if the nurse thinks it appropriate, immediate attention from an ambulance crew. That will be a big step forward. We are trying to sort out any wrinkles in the arrangements, but we are confident that


the pilot schemes will work and bring great benefits. That is why we are committed to introducing NHS Direct to every part of England by 2000.

Waiting Lists (Oxfordshire)

Mr. Baldry: If he will make a statement on the number of patients in the area covered by the Oxfordshire health authority who have been waiting for operations for over a year; and what was the figure on 1 May 1997. [34370]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Available information shows all patients awaiting admission to hospital, not just those waiting for operations. Provisional figures show that on 31 December there were 963 Oxfordshire health authority residents who had been waiting more than a year. Figures for 1 May 1997 are not available.

Mr. Baldry: The Minister of State will be aware that, during the last general election, the Labour candidate in my constituency dished out pledge cards to electors, which gave a firm promise that, if elected, a Labour Government would reduce waiting lists by 100,000. The reality is somewhat different. In Oxfordshire, waiting lists have gone up by 11 per cent. and, as the Minister has just made clear, as at 1 January, nearly 1,000 people had been waiting for more than a year, and more than 100 had been waiting more than 18 months. Given the trusts' accumulated deficits of nearly £7 million, when do the Government believe that waiting lists in Oxfordshire will start to fall? Is he confident that Oxfordshire will get a fair allocation of the money made available by the Chancellor last week?

Mr. Milburn: I can only presume that the hon. Gentleman was not around for the Budget or for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement last week; had he been so, he would have been aware that the £500 million made available through the Budget will be targeted specifically at cutting waiting lists. As we have made absolutely clear, the top priority for the national health service for next year is to get waiting lists down. Waiting lists will be shorter by April next year than when we came to power. By the end of this Parliament, the pledge will have been fulfilled.

Mr. Hinchliffe: In respect of waiting lists in Oxfordshire and elsewhere in the country—

Madam Speaker: In Oxfordshire.

Mr. Hinchliffe: And elsewhere in the country.

Madam Speaker: No, only Oxfordshire.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am very concerned about Oxfordshire. In respect of waiting lists in Oxfordshire, has my hon. Friend examined the possible connection between the activities of certain part-time consultants and their waiting lists and their private practice? Is it not a fact that if there were no waiting lists, there would not be private practice—in Oxfordshire?

Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend has just shown, his knowledge of this country stretches well beyond

Wakefield. He is terribly familiar with the problems of Oxfordshire and has due regard for the way in which the Government will be tackling them. I believe that the overwhelming majority of hospital consultants are performing well above the contract on which they are employed in the NHS. We rely on their endeavours now and will do so even more in the year ahead when we will expect them to do even more with the money that we will be making available to them.

Dr. Harris: I shall not pursue what I am sure was an unintended slur by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on the hard-working NHS staff in Oxfordshire.
In Oxfordshire, as nationally, there is a great fear that the funding to deal with waiting lists might not be sufficient to reduce waiting lists as well as to preserve community hospitals, community care beds and mental health services. If local managers decide that, while reducing waiting lists is important, they also wish to preserve drug addiction services, mental health services and community health services, will they be sanctioned, or will they have to say that, although they are embarrassed, they can do no more than make their own judgments and follow the clinicians' judgments as to what are the top priorities, given the insufficient resources available?

Mr. Milburn: It is a tired old record that we hear from the hon. Gentleman and his party. Whenever we put more money into the national health service, the Liberal Democrats decide that the only tactic is to leapfrog us. We should remember that, at the last general election, the Liberal Democrats were committed to investing an extra £540 million in the national health service. We have doubled that amount—that is how much is going into the NHS—and £320 million of the £500 million for the health service that my right hon. Friend announced last week is targeted at waiting lists. They are the top priority, and we shall reduce them because that is what counts for patients. In my view and that of my party, lengthening waiting lists merely dents public confidence in the ability of the NHS.

Mr. Truswell: Does my hon. Friend know how many patients in Oxfordshire have shared the experience of my constituent, six-year-old Kristie Swift? Six months ago, she was told that she needed an operation. She was then told that she could not have it because her GP was not a fundholder, and was then informed that she could have it because the trust had made a mistake and her GP was a fundholder. Is not that typical of the hokey cokey bureaucracy with which patients have to deal under the two-tier system that we inherited from the Conservative Government? Will my hon. Friend speed Kristie's recovery by assuring her that she will be one of the last people to suffer from it?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not just about the circumstances in Oxfordshire, but about those throughout the country. In future, we want treatment to be given according to need alone. That is the founding principle of the NHS, by which the Government abide.

Mr. Maples: If the Secretary of State tells Oxfordshire health authority to make the reduction of waiting lists its overriding objective next year, is there not a serious


danger that some other aspect of the service—probably drug budgets—will worsen? Can he promise hon. Members that drug budgets will not be reduced as a consequence of the waiting list initiative in Oxfordshire health authority?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets one fact: the £500 million allocated in the Budget is on top of the extra £1.2 billion made available to the NHS in the previous Budget, which makes £1.7 billion more for the next financial year than the Conservative party promised.

Mr. Maples: Hon. Members will have noticed that the Minister dodged a simple and straightforward question. Is not his problem that waiting lists cannot improve without some other service worsening unless and until the NHS receives real annual increases in funding of more than 3 per cent. a year, as happened, on average, for the past 18 years? The NHS would have an additional £940 million next year if the Government had maintained that policy, and I would not have had to ask my first question.

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has a very bad case of wanting to have his cake and eat it. He complained when waiting lists were going up; now he complains when waiting lists are coming down. As we said at the general election, the Government want shorter waiting lists, and are pledged to deliver that. I remind him that, under the Conservative Government, waiting lists went on rising—year in, year out. Under this Government, they will continue to fall year on year, and as a consequence patients will be in a better position.

Medical Negligence Claims

Dr. Tony Wright: What was the cost to the NHS last year of medical negligence claims. [34371]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The cost of clinical negligence to the Department of Health in 1996–97 was £300 million, £235 million of which was a cost to the national health service that was largely made up of provision for probable future settlements. The remaining £65 million was a direct cash cost to the Department of Health under the existing liabilities scheme.

Dr. Wright: Does not every health authority and trust face rapidly escalating bills for medical negligence claims? Every pound spent on defending such claims is a pound less spent on patient care, which is unsustainable. Is not the way forward the clear separation of complaints against doctors from compensation for medical accidents and a no-fault medical injuries compensation scheme?

Ms Jowell: The Government do not intend to establish a no-fault compensation scheme; instead, we intend to drive up the standards of treatment in the national health service that lie behind so many negligence claims. We want to keep doctors out of court, and lawyers out of the operating theatre. We want a national health service in which doctors and nurses are in the driving seat, not judges and lawyers.

Mr. Wardle: Will the Minister reconsider the plight of women who suffer permanent injury and disability as a

result of radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer, who are represented by the campaign RAGE—Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure? Rather than insisting that negligence in the limited number of cases involved should be proved in the courts, will the Minister agree to compensation now, so that the matter can be settled without further agonising delay?

Ms Jowell: It is utterly cynical of the hon. Gentleman to seek to secure compensation on the Floor of the House. He will be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has met representatives of RAGE a number of times. The Government's policy is clear: that compensation will be paid when negligence is established in court. That, we believe, is the right way in which to protect patients, and to safeguard the precious resources of the national health service for patient care.

Mrs. Betty Williams: In view of recent events in my local NHS hospital trust, is my hon. Friend prepared to consider tightening procedures for the employment of NHS staff?

Ms Jowell: If my hon. Friend writes to me about matters of particular concern in the context of medical negligence, I shall be happy to deal with them.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: May I return to the question of accepting liability for harm done? The Minister will know that a great many haemophiliacs have contracted hepatitis C from blood donations. Her Department has already paid money to those who have contracted HIV, and I know that the Secretary of State met representatives of haemophiliacs in September last year and promised them a speedy response to the issues that they had raised. Will the Minister enlighten us about what has happened between last September and today, so that I can avoid being instructed—in another capacity entirely—by haemophiliacs to pursue a case against the Government?

Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Haemophilia Society last year, and the content of that discussion is currently under consideration. As the hon. Lady is doubtless aware, my right hon. Friend recently announced the Government's intention to make recombinant factor VIII available to children.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware of the distinction between cases in which there is clearly no answer to the question of liability in regard to medical negligence—cases in which the Government should come clean, admit that there has been negligence and dispose of the claims—and the variety of other cases of an individual kind in which negligence must be clearly established in accordance with the normal processes in the court? Is that not a valid distinction that the Government should take on board?

Ms Jowell: We fully take on board the scale of human misery that litigation causes in such cases, but it is important for the House to know that only 17 per cent. of cases taken to court succeed. In the 83 per cent. that fail, the only person who walks away with a cheque is the lawyer.

Barnet and Edgware Hospitals

Mr. Clappison: If he will visit (a) Barnet and (b) Edgware hospitals to discuss health provision in north London and south Hertfordshire. [34372]

Mr. Milburn: We have no plans at present to visit either hospital.

Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister aware that the trust concerned with Barnet and Edgware hospitals is proposing a programme of service cuts that will result in the loss of one quarter of in-patient beds? If that happens, there is precious little hope for an improvement in waiting lists or anything else for the residents of north London and south Hertfordshire. Despite all the talk of money and improvements in waiting lists, will the Minister take a look at the trust's financial situation and ensure that the service offered to my constituents does not fall below that offered elsewhere in the country?

Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the concerns in the local community about the issue and the difficult position in which the health authority finds itself—having to sort out the legacy left by the previous Administration. The trust, the health authority and the regional office are working very closely to ensure the best possible outcome for the local community.

Audrey Wise: Will my hon. Friend take note that at least one good thing has come from what I am afraid I think was a mess over Barnet and Edgware: the establishment of a very progressive birth centre, which will be opening officially very soon? Will he wish that birth centre all the best, keep an eye on it and ensure that it does not become a temporary project, to be discontinued as soon as its value is proven, as is happening to so many useful maternity projects at the moment?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Thanks to all the efforts in the local community over the past few months, we have the option in the Edgware area of a high-quality community hospital, which will blaze a trail that many others will follow. Much work has been done, involving the community health council, some of my hon. Friends' local campaign groups and local GPs, to ensure that the best possible services are provided for the Edgware community.

Eye and Dental Checks

Mr. Wallace: If he will make it his policy to reinstate free eye and dental checks. [34373]

Ms Jowell: The question is being addressed as part of the comprehensive spending review of all Departments' expenditure. The review is being carried out in the context of the Government's clear election manifesto commitment that,
if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone".

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister recall that, when her party and mine resisted the Conservative Government's efforts to introduce charges for dental check-ups and eye tests, one of the arguments that we used was that intervention could identify at an early stage diseases that could cause later problems? Does she still agree that that is a valid argument? By making necessary investment to restore free eye and dental checks, the Government could improve the general well-being and health of many, make savings in the long term and—conceivably—even reduce waiting lists. Will she repeal those Tory health taxes?

Ms Jowell: On the deliberations of the comprehensive spending review, the hon. and learned Gentleman will simply have to wait. It is however important that prevention is available wherever possible. Forty per cent. of people are eligible for free sight tests due to risk of conditions such as glaucoma and diabetes. It is extremely important that every encouragement be given to people to take up such eligibility.
The Government have recently announced a total of £19 million-worth of investment in dentistry in order to tackle inequality of access in some of the poorest parts of the country.

Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to restore all parts of the health service, such as free eye and dental checks, is to make sustainable increases in expenditure. rather than adopt the method proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would serve only to raise expectations, which would later be met with cuts, as the magic penny would fail to deliver the kind of money about which they are always talking?

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. Spraying around spending commitments is the prerogative of a party that will always be in opposition. The people of this country did the best thing for the national health service by electing a Labour Government last year.

Suicide

Mr. Lock: What targets he proposes to set for reducing deaths from suicide and undetermined injury. [34374]

Mr. Levitt: What targets he proposes to set for reducing deaths from suicide and undetermined injury. [34379]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" sets out the Government's proposed mental health target, which is to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least a further sixth by the year 2010.

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that suicide rates among the socially disadvantaged are higher than those in the rest of the population? Does he agree that taking appropriate action to reduce suicide rates would be one of the best


ways of getting rid of the appalling legacy of health inequality that we inherited from the previous Government?

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right to point out the impact of inequality, which affects that area of health like every other. We are particularly concerned that, while the overall suicide rate is decreasing, it is increasing among young men between 16 and 25. We are addressing that problem as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Levitt: My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Green Paper says that we should address health problems by getting the social conditions right. Will he explain how we will tackle social conditions to reduce the suicide rate, which runs at 16 unnecessary deaths a year in north Derbyshire alone?

Mr. Boateng: Socio-economic conditions, not least unemployment, have clearly contributed to the stress that impacts on young men, which inevitably affects their suicide rate. We aim to reduce that rate through economic regeneration. The health action zones will provide ample opportunity for that.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have chosen similar mental health targets to ours—our target was a 15 per cent. reduction in such deaths by 2000, while they have chosen a 17 per cent. reduction by 2010.
More people take their own life than are killed on the roads. There should be a bipartisan approach to reducing that appalling loss. Does the Minister agree that the issue requires not just resources—in social services as much as in health—but partnership between Government agencies, voluntary bodies and employers? New legislation is required. There was resistance to the introduction of supervised discharge and supervision registers, but if people in the community are to get the care they need to reduce that loss of life, we need to look again at the mental health legislation.

Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Lady had an opportunity to review that legislation. She did not take it.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Minister agree that mental health provision continues to be the Cinderella of the national health service? Does he further accept that care in the community is a mixed blessing and has been proven not to work in many cases? Will he ensure that Government policy focuses particularly on reducing loss of life among the young? Will he consider the example of VISYON—the Voluntary Initiative Supporting Youngsters' Ongoing Needs—which is an organisation in my constituency that seeks to help young people with mental health problems?

Mr. Boateng: I should be happy to consider what we can learn from the hon. Lady's constituency to tackle the problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that we believe that care in the community has failed large numbers of our fellow citizens. We are determined to get it right. We shall bring forward proposals on the issue in due course.

NHS Anniversary

Mr. Dismore: What resources he is making available to schools to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS. [34376]

Ms Jowell: The Department has produced a national health service 50th anniversary education pack, which is available to schools and colleges throughout England on request.

Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the celebrations, schoolchildren should learn the history of the NHS in their area? Will she make resources available so that children in my area can learn about the history of Edgware hospital, which was closed by the previous Government in its 49th year, but which, thanks to the efforts of the local community, will be reborn in its 50th year as the new Edgware community hospital, with widespread local support?

Ms Jowell: I entirely accept that local history is as important as the proud history of the national health service created by a Labour Government 50 years ago, and rescued and renewed 50 years later by another Labour Government.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the hon. Lady think that the Secretary of State is wise to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the national health service by closing Horncastle hospital, especially bearing in mind the fact that more than 2,000 school children are bussed into Horncastle every day from an extensive rural area, and that, if that much-valued hospital is closed, they will be more than 20 miles away from any other hospital, along difficult winding country lanes that are sometimes almost impassable in the winter months?

Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman asked me in particular about the Secretary of State's wisdom. My right hon. Friend is infinitely wise, as is evident from all his decisions.

Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important part of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the national health service will be to remind the people of this country, especially the young people, which party established it, and which party opposed its establishment?

Ms Jowell: I recommend that hon. Members with an odd moment to spare read the report of the Second Reading debate on the National Health Service Bill, which makes my hon. Friend's point entirely clear: the national health service was created in the teeth of the opposition of the Conservative party.

Mr. Nicholls: Would not school children really have something to celebrate for the 50th anniversary if Ministers would stop pretending to have a better record on funding the national health service than their Conservative predecessors, and pledged instead to bring their funding up to the previous Administration's average increase of 3.1 per cent. per annum? That would be a pledge worth celebrating. Why does the hon. Lady not give it?

Ms Jowell: As we have improved on the Conservative Government's funding record on every count, that comment comes ill from the hon. Gentleman.

South Humber Health Authority

Mr. Mitchell: What proposals he has for reform of health service structures in South Humber health authority area. [34377]

Mr. Milburn: Our plans for modernising the national health service were set out in the recent White Paper, "The new NHS", which envisages fewer but larger health authorities, more co-operation between NHS trusts, and the development of new primary care groups. As part of that process, we shall work with health authorities and the professions to determine the best configuration of local services.

Mr. Mitchell: May I express the hope that my hon. Friend will look favourably on the sensible proposals for reorganisation of the health service that the South Humber health authority has now finally produced? Those envisage reducing the number of provider trusts from three to two, setting up two primary care groups to take charge of community services, and putting mental health services, which have always been the Cinderella of the service both locally and nationally, under a wider provider, preferably from the north bank.

Mr. Milburn: On the face of it, those proposals sound consistent with the policy directions set out in the White Paper, and I look forward to receiving the representations of the health authority. I assume that there will be a period of public consultation before the proposals are agreed. It is important that such proposals meet the needs of the local community, and I know that my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends have been in negotiations and discussions with the health authority and others over recent weeks, and I look forward to receiving their representations, too.

Cancer Deaths

Mr. Corbett: What targets he proposes to set for reducing deaths from cancer among people aged under 65 years. [34378]

Ms Jowell: A reduction in deaths from cancer among people under 65 will be achieved by improving access to treatment and the quality of treatment, and by widening the scope for prevention.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she confirm that the death rate from cancer is twice as high among the unskilled as among professionals, and that one third of the people who die from cancer are under 65? Can she assure me that efforts will be focused on offering deprived communities extra health care and advice to ensure that we overcome the inequalities in health provision?

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is estimated that about a third of cancers are in some way linked to poor diet, and half of all those who smoke are likely to die of cancer. Against any measure, the poorer you are, the greater your chance of contracting cancer. That is why, as part of our drive to tackle health inequality and to improve healthy years of life, we will focus resources and efforts on the most deprived communities.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's early response on steps to help cancer victims, but, having

almost deified the Secretary of State for his infinite wisdom, can she tell us what steps have been taken to help mortal man who may be afflicted with prostate cancer?

Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the proposals under consideration on the case for screening of prostate cancer. Recently, I was involved in discussions about the importance of an improved focus on men's health. It may not be a matter for discussion on the Floor of the House, but it was put to me that self-examination by men as a preventive step in relation to prostate cancer should be undertaken in the same way as women undertake breast examinations to detect early signs of breast cancer.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the great increase in smoking among young women in particular is a cause of great concern? We are waiting for the Government to launch a hard-hitting advertising campaign which goes on and on and on, until the consciousness of young people is raised to the real dangers of blighting their lives and their health through smoking. Will we see an early start to that campaign, as we are getting impatient?

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent advertising campaign—which was successful and was well received among young people—on the risks of smoking, which targeted in particular young people aged 16 to 24. He is absolutely right; we are deeply concerned about the rise in the numbers of young people—particularly young women—who smoke. One in three 15-year-old women are regular smokers.
To suggest that an advertising campaign alone will be enough to tackle this disturbing rise is too simple a view of an intractable public health problem. That is why the White Paper which we will publish later this summer will focus on protecting children, reducing smoking among children and supporting the seven out of 10 smokers who wish to give up. We must never forget that the 15-year-old woman who smokes today will be a lung cancer victim in 30 years' time.

NHS Trust Mergers

Mr. Breed: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on NHS trusts mergers indicating the estimated savings to the NHS from trust mergers in 1998–99. [34380]

Mr. Milburn: Any merger proposal will be considered on its own merits, on the basis of demonstrable benefits to health and health care and savings in administration. We expect to see about £3 million in savings from mergers of national health service trusts next year, leading to longer-term savings of £10 million per year.

Mr. Breed: Will the Minister assure my constituents that there will be no hospital closures or bed reductions in advance of trust merger proposals, so that any administrative savings can be directed to front-line services?

Mr. Milburn: That is precisely our commitment. Any money that comes out of administration and bureaucracy as a consequence of trust mergers will be


reinvested locally for the benefit of front-line patient care. That is the right priority, which I believe both staff and patients support. We do not have a national blueprint for trust mergers, but we are prepared to listen to local proposals that come about as a result of local decision-making rather than of any national edict.

Mr. Edwards: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Nevill Hall trust proposal for a separate trust for north Gwent, as opposed to Gwent health authority's proposal for a single trust for the whole of Gwent? I assure him that the health authority's proposal would produce the savings that the Government want, reduce the number of trusts in Gwent, and maintain the integrity of Nevill Hall hospital as a district general hospital.

Mr. Milburn: It is important that any trust merger proposal takes as its yardstick the improvement of services for patients—that is how trust merger proposals are judged. Moreover, they have to demonstrate that there will be administrative savings. We all know that the lunacy of the internal market led to the embedding of far too many trust organisations in the national health service, all competing against one another. Thankfully, a new spirit of co-operation is abroad in the national health service, which we expect to lead over time to fewer trusts rather than more.

Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister accept that consultations—in east Kent, for example—are both led and controlled not by medical staff but by lay administrators, whose jobs, of course, are at risk from trust merger proposals? Will he assure the House that he will be robust in ensuring that, in any proposal for trust mergers, the vested interests of administrators do not override medical provision?

Mr. Milburn: On east Kent, as on any other trust merger proposals, Ministers will examine carefully local proposals that have come about as a result of local consultation and local decision-making. As I said, we do not have a national blueprint that we want to apply to all areas. Different parts of the country have different needs, and it is right that different organisational structures should reflect that.

Mr. Dawson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wise decision in approving the merger of acute health trusts in Lancaster, Kendal and Barrow, and of community health trusts in Lancaster and Barrow. Does he agree that those mergers will produce substantial savings in bureaucracy, which will build on the great strides that have been made in Lancaster in reducing waiting lists month on month since 1 May 1997? Does he also agree that there is now a real need to get on with the appointment of non-executive directors to maintain the impetus that has been created?

Mr. Milburn: Wisdom is obviously contagious, which is useful to all Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the issue of appointments to non-executive directorships; we expect to make an announcement in due course. I believe that the proposal for the Morecambe bay area is right for the people who live there, for patients and staff, and for the national health

service. Thankfully, there will be a new spirit of co-operation in the Morecambe bay area, just as there is throughout the country.

NHS Waiting Lists

Mr. Ruffley: If he will make a statement on NHS waiting lists. [34381]

Mr. Prior: If he will make a statement on NHS hospital waiting lists. [34383]

Mr. Dobson: Waiting lists are far too long and must be reduced. Last Wednesday, following the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I announced that the Government had found an extra £500 million for the health service for next year on top of the previously announced extra £1.2 billion, and that that sum would be devoted to reducing waiting lists by April next year to below the record level that we inherited from the Tory Government.
That will be followed by further targeted efforts to reduce waiting lists by at least a further 100,000 during this Parliament. Reductions on that scale have never been achieved before in the history of the national health service.

Mr. Ruffley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in February 1997, West Suffolk hospital in my constituency had fewer than 5,500 on the waiting list, but that since 1 May the number has risen to more than 5,600? That is a result of the spending allocations for Suffolk being the joint worst in the Anglia and Oxford region. When will he stop the policy of moving money away from rural health authorities and into urban areas?

Mr. Dobson: As the policy has not started, there will be no need to stop it. The only thing that has started is Opposition Members peddling stories that are not true. The only significant change in allocations was an item to recognise the additional cost that ambulance services in rural areas have to bear because of the distances covered, so rural areas are generally better off. Exactly half the increase in the number on the waiting list in Suffolk last year occurred in the first quarter of the year—the period for which the Conservative Government were entirely responsible.

Mr. Prior: The Secretary of State has publicly and disgracefully threatened to dismiss local health service chiefs if his targets for waiting list reductions are not met, although he has not provided them with the resources to meet those targets. Is that fair?

Mr. Dobson: The waiting list reduction target that I announced at the Dispatch Box last Wednesday, to be funded by the extra money that I announced at the time, was not conjured out of the air by Ministers: it was the product of the considered view of the chief executive of the national health service. The British Medical Association, representing doctors, and the National Health Service Confederation, representing board members and managers, confirm that it is a realistic target. It must be taken seriously by everybody in the national health


service. It is in the interests of patients and of the service that targets should be met, and I am making it clear to all concerned that they will be met.

Mr. Hepburn: I applaud the Government's policies to reduce waiting lists, but what assistance does the Secretary of State intend to give to NHS trusts in financial difficulties? Will he take into consideration the representations that I have made to him in writing on the future of the minor injuries unit at Jarrow hospital?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend will know that I cannot give him an off-the-cuff answer on the future of the minor injuries unit in Jarrow, and he would not expect me to; but I can tell him that most of the debts that health authorities face are the hangover of the debts that they faced under the previous Government—except that, generally speaking, the amounts are a lot lower. I am making it clear to the non-executive directors, chairs and chief executives of every health authority and trust that not a penny of the extra money for targeting on waiting lists is to be spent on anything else. The people who think that they can divert the money had better think again.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only have we put in an extra £1.7 billion, but we have had to face the fact that the Conservatives in government wasted a huge amount that could have gone towards cutting waiting lists on the introduction of the marketplace in the health service, and that that led to the increasing waiting lists that we have inherited? We are now promoting co-operation, and, in addition to the extra resources, we have the capacity to make the money work better in the NHS. Is it not a disgrace that Conservatives Members should now be hopping up and down, when they could not deliver on behalf of the people of this country in all their 18 years in government?

Mr. Dobson: I accept all the points that my hon. Friend has made. During this winter, which is just coming to an end, the NHS and people working in social services have amply demonstrated to everyone that, given targeted additional resources, they can deliver the targets laid down. On the basis of the confidence that I have developed in the capacity of the health service to do that, we have found an additional £5 million, which is to be targeted on waiting lists and will not be diverted for any other purpose.
That is why, on the advice of the chief executive of the NHS, I am confident that, by the end of the coming year, we will get waiting lists down to below the level that we inherited, and will go on from there—it is not a stunt for one year or anything of that sort—to get them down by at least 100,000 more before the end of this Parliament, and, hopefully, considerably more.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the whole country now knows that, if the Labour party had been really honest, its election "early pledge" would have read, "Waiting lists will be shorter, but not yet," or, "Waiting lists will be shorter, but not for years," does the Secretary of State accept the view now widely held among the professionals he quoted and informed journalists—the view that my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have held for years—that waiting lists and times will not come down

significantly and the NHS will not escape a profound financial crisis until it receives at least a 3 per cent. a year increase in real terms?
Given that the right hon. Gentleman said last week that managers would not have confidence in the Government exercising their position if they did not use their resources properly, why should the country have confidence in the Government's claim that they are saving the health service if, in the first two years, they have given it less than it needs even to stand still?

Mr. Dobson: I do not know who these people are in the professions, and as for "informed journalists", that is almost a contradiction in terms. The fact of the matter is that I have talked to the leaders of the professions, and they are confident that the £500 million—

Mr. Hughes: Is it enough?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman was on his feet speaking for about five minutes and now wants to continue bleating on.
I was saying that the leaders of the professions have told me that they believe that £500 million targeted specifically on waiting lists will achieve what we have asked for, the British Medical Association has said the same, and that is the considered opinion of the chief executive of the national health service, who was not in thumbscrews or on a rack when he gave that advice—it was entirely voluntary. He thought that it was a good idea, and we have accepted his advice
We have set the target, and we are now determined that we will help the 1 million people in the health service to deliver it. If the Liberals do not want it delivered in their areas, they can give me a list of the places where they do not want waiting lists to come down, and I am sure we can oblige.

Mr. McCabe: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how he envisages that the extra £500 million will be put to use to cut the waiting lists in the Birmingham area?

Mr. Dobson: It will be straightforward. It will be spent on more operations, more work by doctors and more nurses employed in the Birmingham area, on more effort in the Birmingham area to stop people who would be better off at home from having to go into hospital, and on more concerted effort to get out of hospital people who are better off at home. All that will be happening in real terms to real people, carried out by real doctors and real nurses, in real Birmingham.

Hotel Charges (Health Trusts)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will list those health trusts which make available facilities for which patients pay hotel charges; and if he will make a statement. [34382]

Mr. Boateng: All basic services, such as catering, cleaning and laundry, are free of charge to national health service patients. Information is not held centrally on extra services that they may be offered—for example, bedside television.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he not feel that the national health service


as a whole should he able to maximise the use of facilities to provide additional resources for patient care? Hospitals are being closed, wings are being decommissioned and beds are going out of commission. There is a growing need for facilities for people who for reasons of their own require a private room and facilities. Would it not be good for the health service if it could offer that facility—without in any way creating a two-tier system, to which I am 100 per cent. opposed?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman deserves to be heard with respect, because he has on occasion stood on

his own among Conservative Members in defending the NHS. Nevertheless, he will understand that it is vital that any extra income-generating proposals from trusts must concern optional extras, and they must be just that: optional and extra.

Dr. Iddon: Will my hon. Friend comment on the huge amount of debt owed to the NHS by people in the private sector who have not yet coughed up their full whack?

Mr. Boateng: It is important that anyone who owes anything coughs up.

Anthrax

Mr. A. J. Beith(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the threat from, and the precautions Her Majesty's Government are taking against, any possible attempt to bring anthrax into the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government receive a variety of information of the kind that led to today's newspaper reports. As the country knows, Iraq has a clear capability to produce chemical and biological weapons. One purpose, among others, of the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq has been to detect any production by Iraq of anthrax.
A number of countries have received intelligence about possible threats by Iraq to smuggle anthrax, but our information is that there is no specific threat to the United Kingdom. There is no evidence to suggest that any attempt has actually been made to smuggle anthrax into this country. There is also no evidence that such an attempt at smuggling might be in prospect.
The House would not expect me to go into detail about the intelligence that we have or the specific counter-measures that we have taken. However, we monitor the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom very closely, and we remain vigilant, taking all the necessary precautions. In doing so, we bear in mind the need both for prudence and for a measured, proportionate response that does not generate unnecessary public alarm.
When the initial information about possible anthrax smuggling was received, it was assessed thoroughly alongside all other relevant information and our assessment of Iraqi intentions. In the light of all that, detailed guidance was subsequently given to operational staff at all our ports on the detection of any such attempted smuggling.
Let me emphasise that this warning was a prudent, precautionary measure, and that we have no reason to believe that such an attempt at smuggling is in prospect. All-ports guidance of this nature is not unusual, and has in the past included information on chemical and biological materials.
Our first aim must be to prevent terrorism, but, if necessary, we have the means to deal swiftly and expertly with its consequences. Our plans are well prepared and continually reviewed. They are tested often and at all levels. Our preparations cover all forms of terrorism, including chemical and biological threats. Those preparations include active co-operation with our allies. As part of our European Union presidency, we organised an expert seminar on biological and chemical terrorism which, coincidentally, is being held in the south of England today.
It is right to take sensible measures, but it is unnecessary to be alarmist. The duty of Government is to ensure that we remain prepared and vigilant. We will continue to fulfil that duty with care.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Home Secretary for recognising that, once the stories appeared in the press, it was

desirable for him to respond with a Government statement putting the matter in perspective. Is he satisfied that sufficient resources are available at the ports to deal with any needs that may result from such activities? We feel strongly that those who sometimes risk their lives in bringing us such warnings are people on whose work we place a high value and greatly respect.
Does the Home Secretary recognise that we have to be ready to expect anything from a dictator who has already sought to gas the citizens of his own country? That underlines the importance of the stand that Britain took on restarting the weapons inspection system effectively. Is he aware that there is evidence that, during the 1980s, before this Government's time, anthrax was obtained by Iraq from western US sources, and that development of the culture medium and some of the training of Iraqi scientists may have taken place in Britain? Will he consult his right hon. Friends, to whom my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has put questions on that last point?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am satisfied that sufficient resources exist to deal with any threat that may arise. Yes, I am. They include, necessarily, not only resources at ports but resources effectively to assess the intelligence and other information that is received and the overall assessment of the threat that is posed at any stage by Iraq. Of course I pay tribute, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, to those on whom Britain relies for a variety of information.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question related to things that may or may not have happened in the 1980s. He will understand that I have no personal knowledge of those things, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this matter was raised last month by me and others, may I ask on what date the perceived threat first became apparent to the Home Office?

Mr. Straw: The specific information to which reference is made in today's edition of The Sun became available on 6 March, but I should emphasise to my hon. Friend that that is part of a series of information that is available. The information has to be assessed within its context, not out of context.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is our considered view that, while we demand maximum vigilance at our national points of entry, we should not give Saddam any satisfaction by allowing anyone to generate indefensible public anxiety in this country? While I do not wish him to reveal the contents of the intelligence that he has received, will he assure the House that it has no special features that would constitute a particular threat to this country and/or something about which our public should be told?

Mr. Straw: I most warmly thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tenor of his remarks. He is entirely right to say that we have to balance our response carefully and take sensible and prudent measures without, as he says, giving Saddam the comfort of raising indefensible public anxieties that are not necessary. As I have already


explained, the information is part, as he will fully understand, of a series of information that is received from time to time. It has no particular special features. However, it was information that we had to take into account. Following a thorough assessment of that information, the all-ports warning was issued.

Mr. David Winnick: While we do not want panic or undue anxiety, should not the British people learn the useful lesson that the present Iraqi regime is capable of any evil, bearing in mind what has already been said about the gassing in March 1988 in Iraq itself? Does not all this demonstrate that, as the regime continues to have such means of mass destruction, the United Nations weapons inspection needs to continue for a very long time to come?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has been robust in support of the allied effort against Saddam Hussein—rightly, in my view. The answer to both his questions about the evil nature of the Iraqi regime and the continuing need for weapons inspections is yes.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has always been a risk that terrorists, whether state-driven or domestic, would resort to biological and chemical weapons? Does he accept that that is a fact that has to be taken into account when determining the proper degree of control at external frontiers, and that we should try to ensure that, when people dismantle external frontiers, they leave in place systems that are capable of identifying the import of such weapons? Does he also agree that it is important that nations that are committed to fighting terrorism should ensure that they exchange information as rapidly as possible when they identify any risk of this sort?

Mr. Straw: I agree with all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. While important, the need to maintain vigilance at ports is not only to detect illegal immigrants, but to detect matters such as this. However, he will understand that the primary information has to become available first; otherwise, one is searching for things that are virtually impossible to find. Therefore, it is important that effective systems are in place.
I should correct a small error that I made a moment ago: the information was received in the Home Office on 5 March, not 6 March, as I said.

Ann Clwyd: Is it not the case that information about firms in Britain that supplied the components of chemical and biological weapons was conveyed by the United Nations Special Commission to the previous Government and that, unlike other countries such as Germany, where there have been prosecutions of such companies, no prosecutions have taken place in this country? Will my right hon. Friend look again at that matter?

Mr. Straw: I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends with responsibility for those matters, but my hon. Friend will understand that, by definition, I do not have information that relates to the previous Administration.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I thank the Home Secretary very much for the constructive and

informative statement that he has made to the House this afternoon? It was quite clear that, once the matter became public, it was vital that the people of this country should be reassured and given the basic information. The Home Secretary has done that, and I believe that the country will be grateful.

Mr. Straw: May I, in turn, say to the hon. Gentleman that I am extremely grateful for the tone of his remarks?

Ms Sally Keeble: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his measured statement, to counter some very scary stories this morning? Will he confirm that his Department's role is just one part of the total effort by the Government to deal with the real threat posed to this country by Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Straw: Yes, the role of the Home Office is principally internal to this country. We work with the intelligence agencies, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who joins me on the Treasury Bench for this statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and other Ministers as part of a joint effort, not only by the United Kingdom, but, very importantly, by our allies, to ensure that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is as minimal as possible.

Dr. Julian Lewis: A fortnight ago, hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply impressed by the bravery of the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial team in baring their arms for anthrax vaccinations. Are we now to assume that perhaps that gesture was a little more self-interested than it appeared at the time?

Mr. Straw: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no politician in the House who is less self-interested than my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Benn: May I join in thanking my right hon. Friend for the way in which he presented his statement? In order to put it into perspective, can he give any general idea how many reports of this character reach his Department in the course of a year? There must be a number of alarms of one sort or another, and it would be helpful for us to know, roughly, how regularly warnings of this sort reach his Department.

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give him the specific information that he seeks, because I genuinely do not believe that it would be in the public interest to do so. As I made clear in my opening statement, all-ports warnings are issued from time to time, and an all-ports warning was issued some time ago specifically in relation to a biological or chemical threat.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am partially reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement, but only partially. As I previously told the House, the thing that makes anthrax a lethal terrorist weapon is the fact that it is very easy to store, which means that, if such an attack was planned—thank goodness, it appears to be a very big "if"—the anthrax spores could have been in the country for the past six months, stored quite happily in any dark cellar. I would be really reassured only if I knew that the


Department of Health had made plans to look out for the symptoms of possible attack, and to respond before any announcement might be made by the terrorists.

Mr. Straw: Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that this Government—like the previous Government, very assiduously—take every possible precaution to prevent terrorism, including that of a chemical and biological kind, and to deal with it should it arise. That includes a number of terrorist exercises, which are handled by Ministers as well as by officials. A month ago, I and a number of ministerial colleagues took part in a terrorist exercise to ensure that preparations were fully in place.
Coincidentally, the EU presidency seminar on biological and chemical terrorism, which we organised as part of our presidency, is being held today. That is an indication of our earnest intent to ensure that proper preparations are laid down for any threat that may arise.

Mr. John Smith: I and all hon. Members are grateful to my right hon. Friend for the reassurance that he has given us this afternoon. Will he further assure us that, should such a threat exist in future, international points of entry—such as Cardiff, Wales airport in my constituency—which do not have, and have not had for some years, full-time customs cover, will always remain secure?

Mr. Straw: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are effectively covered by the kind of scrutiny that we put in place.

Points of Order

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I bring to your attention an article in today's edition of The Times by Mr. Andrew Pierce, its political correspondent, which refers to the extraordinary practice that seems to have been carried out by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs? The hon. Gentleman may have literary talents of which we were unaware, but it would appear, if the article is to be believed, that he has been writing the questions that he himself has subsequently answered. That may be a way to ensure that the tame Members on Government Benches ask the questions to which he can reply, but it is surely an abuse of the practice of the House. It is also an abuse of his ministerial office to do the drafting on Department of Trade and Industry writing paper.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has, I believe, correctly put this matter to you in writing. We all deprecate planted questions, but ministerial planting of questions is a thoroughly bad abuse, which I hope that, with the full panoply of your office, you will be able to eradicate on our behalf.

Madam Speaker: I have read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have to tell him very clearly at the outset that the matter has not been brought to my notice in the way that he suggests. We all know that the practice that he describes is not new. All Governments have sought to inspire questions, and ministerial aides have often enlisted Back Benchers to ask helpful questions. Generally, in my experience, it has been done in a more subtle way than appears to have been used in this case. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that I find it a sad reflection on Ministers' views of the quality of Back Benchers if they cannot be trusted to devise their own questions.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No. I have cleared that point of order.

Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will be aware, in the past few years I have initiated several Adjournment debates, and tabled more than 100 questions, on problems relating to the measles and rubella vaccination, and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. Yesterday, the Medical Research Council assembled a working group to look into the research findings of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Although I and the parents of a number of children who were damaged as a result of those vaccinations were totally dissatisfied with the way in which the working group was conducted and set up, I accept that that is not your problem, Madam Speaker.
I want to bring it to your attention that the Medical Research Council organised a press conference with the support, I assume, of the Department of Health. I contacted the Department and the MRC to see whether, as a Member of Parliament who had shown particular interest in the subject, I could gain admission to the press


conference. I was told that that was not possible. Initially, I was told that there was not a spare chair, which I found it difficult to believe. After something of a row with those in authority, they found a chair. They said that I could attend, but that I could not ask a question.
Would you, Madam Speaker, look into the powers of Members of Parliament to question bodies that were set up under the royal charter and which receive public funds? It is ironic that we are not allowed to question such bodies, but the media are.

Madam Speaker: The point of order for me is whether the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member can ask questions of Ministers—who, of course, have the final responsibility. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue to ask questions, initiate Adjournment debates and, perhaps, table a private notice question, if he is not satisfied with what has happened.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to the exchange that you had yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about whether the Foreign Secretary would come to the House and make a statement on his visit to the middle east. At that time, you expressed the view that perhaps he would, but that in any event you would do what you could to help. We have not seen the Foreign Secretary today, so we must assume that he is not coming to the House.
It has been a long-established principle that Foreign Ministers should report to the House on the outcome of important foreign visits. Would you, Madam Speaker, do your best, as you were kind enough to say you would do yesterday in a particular way, to ensure that the general practice is not being abandoned by the Government?

Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is for him, as a long-standing Member, and the many other hon. Members who are interested in this matter, to use the facilities available—his Front Bench, the shadow Leader of the House and the usual channels—to let it be known that the Opposition want a statement. That is the way to proceed now.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that a letter was sent out stating:
Dear Colleague,
John Maples would appreciate it if you could be in the Chamber for Health Questions tomorrow.
I enclose a briefing note but it is particularly effective if colleagues are able to ask supplementary questions which relate to the experiences of their own constituents. Health Ministers in our last Government have confirmed that it is almost impossible for a Minister at the Despatch Box to deal effectively with questions involving individual cases and the impression given is of widespread problems and discontent"?
That was very naughty.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. It looked as if the hon. Gentleman needed some Scotch tape to hold that together.

Crown Estate (Amendment)

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Crown Estate Commissioners to exercise their functions with due regard to the non-commercial interests of local communities; to regulate the granting of sea-bed leases by the Crown Estate Commissioners and establishing the rent therefor; to amend section 4 of the Crown Estate Act 1961; and for connected purposes.
I welcome this opportunity to raise the activities of the Crown Estate Commissioners in relation to sea bed leases. It is a subject that has generated much controversy in the highlands and islands, in particular in my Orkney and Shetland constituency. Indeed, in the northern isles there was even a legal challenge, based on Udal law, as to whether the Crown Estate had legal title to the sea bed. As the Court of Session found that it did, that is the legal basis on which we now have to proceed.
The nub of the problem is that the Crown Estate Commissioners charge excessive rents for the use of the sea bed—a use which, in practice, may not amount to much more than dropping an anchor. That can have a serious financial impact on salmon farming, shellfish farming and non-profit-making community marinas. Their rental charges also have consequences for the cost of providing lifeline transport links in the islands areas.
In all those cases, rent is charged, but the obligations on the Crown Estate as landlord are virtually non-existent. There is almost a parasitic quality about these rental agreements. In fact, the position is that, on the one hand, the Government and Government agencies are claiming to support industries such as fish farming, as well as investing in the transport infrastructure, while on the other, the Crown Estate Commissioners are sucking resources out of those industries and contributing to higher transport costs.
The regulatory function of the Crown Estate in relation to the granting of fish farm leases is currently the subject of Scottish Office consultation. The Bill could provide an opportunity to transfer that function to relevant local authorities in Scotland.
I shall deal with each of those points in turn. My Bill would regulate the way in which rents are charged for sea bed leases, not least to allow for realistic account to be taken of the aquaculture industry and the straitened circumstances that it currently faces. Anyone familiar with the salmon farming industry knows that it is in crisis, with prices barely—if at all—covering production costs. One of the costs that must be borne is the rent charged by the Crown Estate.
In 1996–97, the Crown Estate received some £2.3 million from the Scottish aquaculture industry at a time when it could ill afford it. Although more recently some of the demands for rent have been moderated, salmon farmers still believe that the Treasury, through the Crown Estate, is imposing a production tax on an industry in crisis. What adds to the injury is the feeling that as landlord the Crown Estate has little or no responsibility.
The annual report of the Crown Estate Commissioners shows how much is invested in research. The most recent report informs us that £1 million has been spent on that investment, which sounds a large sum, until one realises that it was spread over 10 years.
Not even that limited discharge of landlordly responsibility can be found in relation to the charges made for community marinas in Shetland. As the House will readily understand, island communities have a strong affinity with the sea. For centuries, many of my constituents in Orkney and Shetland have kept boats, and only in very recent times have they been asked by the Crown Estate to pay a charge for the privilege of mooring their boat.
Many communities have worked hard to establish marinas to afford better protection and safety, yet the Crown Estate insists on charging those non-profit-making community associations the same rent as is charged for moorings in the larger and grander yachting clubs on the mainland in Scotland.
Where rentals have not been agreed, the district valuer has been brought in. Sometimes that has led to even higher proposed rents. It is not always clear on what basis a rent can be charged for permission simply to drop an anchor. In one case, the district valuer proposed an annual rent of £450. The secretary of the Marina Users Association made an interesting observation in a letter to me:
Local land valued by the DV can be bought from approx. 28 pence per square metre, yet he is suggesting an annual rent of 42 pence per square metre for the sea bed.
In another case in which there was concern that excessive rental charges would lead to some port users giving up, therefore putting a bigger financial cost on those left, the commodore of that boating club wrote:
We rent the foreshore for £3 per annum and feel strongly that any rent levied by the Crown Estate should be similarly nominal. We would in preference like to buy the land and have done with this anachronistic quango for good.
The Crown Estate Act 1961 makes provision in section 4 for the commissioners to waive consideration or dispose of the land where land is to be used and occupied for
any communal facilities for recreation".
The kind of community marina to which I have referred might be considered a good case for the rental charges to be waived. The two First Crown Estate Commissioners and the two previous Secretaries of State for Scotland have rejected that plea, on the ground that there were strong legal doubts about whether rent charges could be waived.
It would be one of the purposes of my Bill to clarify the law, so that the commissioners could waive rent or merely charge a nominal rent in the case of non-profit-making facilities. If they did not do so, it would be open to the Secretary of State to use his powers of direction.
Similar considerations can apply in the case of transport infrastructure for lifeline services. The ferry terminals operated by Orkney islands council, for example, are also liable to rent charges by the Crown Estate. At the time of the last review, the Crown Estate's valuation agents proposed increases in excess of 900 per cent. for the terminals at Tingwall, Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre.

That was modest compared with the 2,000 per cent. increase proposed for Rapness in Westray and the 3,000 per cent. increase for Loth in Sanday.
As those costs must be met from a harbour account that must balance, they must inevitably be passed on to the ferry company and on to the fares paid by ferry passengers. Surely it cannot make sense that fragile communities should have to bear such additional costs. The legislation needs amendment to relieve the commissioners of the obligation to go for every penny they can in such situations.
Finally, I should like to deal with the Crown Estate Commissioners' regulatory functions in the operation of marine fish farm leases. Last December, the Scottish Office issued a consultation document proposing that local authorities assume responsibility for determining siting of fish farms, having regard to the environmental impact of such developments. Although there seems to be a consensus that, in principle, the Crown Estate Commissioners' regulatory powers should be transferred to local councils, the difficulty is in determining how such a transfer can be made. It is difficult to imagine it happening without legislation. Moreover, I do not believe that it would be a simple matter of extending planning legislation to include the sea bed.
The Government propose that, after Scottish devolution, the Crown Estate should be a reserved matter—next week, we might debate that proposal. However, surely it would be better if we passed the necessary legislation while the House has responsibility not only for the Crown Estate but for Scottish local government. My Bill could serve as a vehicle for such a change.
I believe that the problems that I have highlighted are serious, not least in connection with the social and economic well-being of some of our nation's distant and fragile communities. I do not believe that the Government wish to undermine those communities by using back-door taxation. Therefore, if the Crown Estate Commissioners are either unwilling or unable to show greater flexibility than they have shown until now, legislation will be necessary to provide that greater flexibility and fairness.
Even if my Bill suffers the fate of most ten-minute Bills, I hope that Ministers who are listening will be willing to act.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew George.

CROWN ESTATE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. James Wallace accordingly presented a Bill to require the Crown Estate Commissioners to exercise their functions with due regard to the non-commercial interests of local communities; to regulate the granting of sea-bed leases by the Crown Estate Commissioners and establishing the rent therefor; to amend section 4 of the Crown Estate Act 1961; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed image [Bill 157].

Orders of the Day — School Standards and Framework Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 7

TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS

'.—Notwithstanding the provisions of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, a pay and conditions order issued under the Act shall not apply to the statutory conditions of employment of the school teachers employed in a foundation, foundation special or voluntary aided school.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 deals with an absolutely key part of the responsibility of foundation and voluntary aided schools. Clause 52 makes it clear that, ultimately, the appointment and dismissal of teachers in community and voluntary controlled schools will be a responsibility of the local education authority. However, clause 53 makes it clear that a different principle will apply to foundation schools and voluntary aided schools—which reflects the Government's policy, as stated in "Excellence in Schools", and is part of their commitment to creating a difference between foundation and voluntary aided schools and community and voluntary controlled schools.
I agree with an approach offering two alternative ways of running schools. In the long run, some schools may opt to accept that their teachers should be employed by the local education authority, and that their assets should be managed and owned by the local education authority. I understand why the Government have included that option in the Bill, as some schools may wish to continue operating on that basis. However, I also believe that the Bill should allow schools that wish to accept greater responsibility for their own affairs to be responsible for managing their own teaching and non-teaching employees and their own buildings and assets. Such a freedom should be available to schools.
The Government have come some way in the Bill in recognising that such freedom should exist. We tabled the new clause to encourage them to follow their own logic, and to go a couple of stages further in providing that freedom.
Clause 53 and schedule 17 will allow foundation and voluntary aided schools to be responsible for the appointment of teachers, subject to a process involving those schools' head teacher and other teachers. They also make it clear that the management of the teaching force is the responsibility of the head teacher reporting to the governing body. However, the Bill does not allow the head teacher or the governing body, in negotiation with the teachers they employ, to vary the terms of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The new clause is an attempt to open the door to that possibility.
We contend that, if a school is to be the employer of teachers, and if it is to have the freedom to follow its own ideas about how the skills and dedication of those teachers can best be used to meet the needs of its children and

the community it serves, the freedom to vary teachers' nationally negotiated terms and conditions should be vested in the governing body which is, according to the Government's own drafting, the employing agency for those teachers.
I do not understand why the Government should open the door to the principle that the school is the teacher's employer, only to deny to the governing body and the school one of the basic instruments that an employer ought to have: the ability to create a context that best allows it to meet its needs by varying—by negotiation, of course—the teachers' employment terms.
I am not opposed—nor is my party—to the Review Body on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Service; it would be odd if we were, as we set it up. The principle of independent advice about teachers' pay and conditions, provided by a body working to the Government, is one which we established and which has a continuing role in the employment of teachers. Indeed, it could be argued that allowing more schools the freedom to develop their own pay and conditions packages to respond to local needs reinforces rather than undermines the need for an independent review body to examine how teachers' pay and conditions evolve. The development of local variations and local flexibility reinforces, rather than undermines, the principle of the review body.
It is important to emphasise that not every voluntary aided and foundation school would want to follow up the freedom provided in the new clause. We know that only a tiny minority of grant-maintained schools used the freedom when it was available to them. If the new clause were accepted, there would be nothing to stop a foundation or voluntary aided school declaring as a matter of policy that it intended to apply national pay and conditions to its teaching force. That freedom would be available, but alongside it would be the freedom for a school not to apply national pay and conditions if it thought that, given its conditions, a different set of arrangements or a variation on the national arrangements would allow it better to deliver its service.
My argument is intrinsic to the delivery of what the Minister for School Standards said repeatedly in Committee was the Government's objective—to focus responsibility within the school. He is right about that, so why not give those responsible for the management of the school the greatest possible range of instruments to enable them to fulfil the responsibility which the Minister correctly places primarily on them?
There are two reasons why the Government cannot argue that they are opposed to that idea in principle. First, paragraph 5 of schedule 31—what might loosely be termed the Oratory school exemption—allows existing exemptions to continue to operate. Presumably the Minister would have withdrawn the exemption if he thought it in some sense inimical to the standard and delivery of high-quality education in the maintained sector; indeed, he would not have extended it to his favourite children—those in the education action zones.
Secondly, the Government are regrettably withdrawing from grant-maintained schools the ability to apply the principle contained in new clause 7 that there should be greater variety and flexibility in teachers' pay and conditions, but under clause 13 they are extending it in education action zones, which will—in certain circumstances and after proper process—be exempt from


the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. New clause 7 acknowledges that the Government are offering the right provision on teachers' pay and conditions in education action zones.
For exactly the reasons why the Minister is applying the provisions of clause 13 to education action zones, he should extend that freedom to employing schools—the voluntary aided and foundation schools. He vests in them primary responsibility for delivering high standards, and has given them responsibility for employing teachers. Why does he not give them the same freedom to vary teachers' pay and conditions that he is to extend to the education action zones under schedule 31(5).

Mrs. Theresa May: I support the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). I made it clear in Committee that I would go further than the new clause; in my view, the watchwords should be maximum flexibility, which should be introduced generally at individual school level. It is illogical for the Government to accept the principle that schools should be able to move away from national terms and conditions under the Oratory school exemption, where the school is the employing body, and to apply it to education action zones, where the employing body will continue to be the local education authority.
We debated that issue in Committee, and it will be discussed again because of the practical difficulties that may arise. The Government are to allow a school of a particular type that is an employing body for teachers to depart from national terms and conditions, but also intend to allow schools that are not employing bodies that come under the headline description that the Minister for School Standards so favours—education action zones—to do the same. It would be much more logical to extend the ability to move away from national pay, terms and conditions to schools that are employing bodies, to which new clause 7 refers.
The Government will have to reconsider the matter in the future if they do not accept the new clause. Teacher recruitment has been debated in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on Education and Employment. Problems with teacher recruitment, and the crisis that is developing in our education system, are forcing us to consider locally devised solutions to teacher recruitment package problems. That could be done at LEA level.
I have been involved in putting together innovative recruitment and retention packages outside national pay, terms and conditions to attract teachers to schools that had experienced problems in attracting teachers. The Government must accept that schools and local education authorities will have to be given more flexibility to enable them to move outside the scope of national pay and conditions—albeit potentially within a national framework—in order to identify local circumstances, put together packages that respect those circumstances and employ the teachers who are required to provide the standard of education that the Government keep telling us they seek.
It is particularly illogical that the Minister should tell schools that are employing bodies as the Bill stands, "Yes, you can employ the teachers, but you cannot have flexibility in regard to the terms and conditions under

which you employ them." Few schools would be willing to employ staff on that basis. Surely, if the Minister accepts the principle of the Oratory school clause—if he accepts the principle in terms of non-employing bodies, namely schools within education action zones—it is entirely reasonable to extend that principle to schools that are identified in the Bill, which the Government acknowledge will themselves be employing bodies.
The new clause would produce the freedom and flexibility for which any employer should ask, and I trust that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Phil Willis: I trust that the Oratory School exception will no longer be an exception by the time the Bill is on the statute book, but we need to ask what are the real motives behind new clause 7.
The new clause cannot have anything to do with the experience of grant-maintained schools and their ability to disapply terms and conditions. I believe that only two grant-maintained schools used that exemption, and we must presume that the vast majority saw certain advantages in remaining within the current national pay and conditions system. Moreover, the system for disapplying pay and conditions was not employed in the case of state schools. If the last Administration thought that the system was such a good idea for grant-maintained schools, surely they ought to have applied it to all schools; but it was applied only to schools that the Government wanted to support.
The new clause cannot be a result of consultation with representatives of teachers' or head teachers' organisations. In a quick trawl of all those organisations this morning, I did not find one that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and his colleagues had consulted. This is another example of something that the teaching profession does not want imposed on it, for reasons that I will come to shortly.
Nor can the new clause be a result of increasing resources for schools. If resources had been increased and given to teachers, there might have been some logic in it, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made no provision for increased teachers' pay, either through the budget process or in their spending plans, which the present Government have inherited. During the last Government's time in office, teachers were underpaid year on year, and were paid in stages. That is how their current terms and conditions were applied.
The new clause cannot be aimed at improving teachers' morale. Few Members who have visited schools in the past few years—certainly none who were elected on 1 May 1997—have not been struck by the fact that in almost all of them there is a real lack of morale: a sense of wanting to get on with the job and to be left alone rather than being plunged into yet more turmoil. That is exactly what the new clause would do—create further division in the teaching profession and further animosity between those schools to which pay and conditions were disapplied and those schools to which they were not. Indeed, without additional resources, the new clause would create division even within schools to which the provisions applied.
To be charitable to the right hon. Member for Charnwood, there is a more important purpose behind the new clause: to draw attention to teachers' pay and


conditions. If the Government are committed to improving standards in our schools—we have to believe that that is so—they must address teachers' pay and conditions. In many schools, there is a sense of injustice that, yet again in this year's settlement, teachers are having to bear the brunt, with a two-stage pay award, rather than being rewarded for the changes that they are expected to make.
I hope that, following consideration in Committee of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill next week, the General Teaching Council will be much more powerful and will give teachers real status. We also require a professional contract for teachers, so that there is a sense of a professionalism to go with the GTC. Teachers want fair pay, decent conditions and esteem among the populace rather than new clauses that would create division.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). There is a theme to this Bill with which those of us who served on the Committee are familiar. There are two sides to the Government, and two sides to their policy. On issues such as varying teachers' pay, we see contradictions in the Government's policy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood rightly pointed out the contradiction between the Government's opposition to the new clause and their stated enthusiasm for education action zones. Not all members of the Labour party are enthusiastic about education action zones. Indeed, this week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement carried the headline "Old Left dislikes tone of the zones". That sums up why we face not one Government but two.
Even when the Bill completes its passage through the House, we will not know in which direction Ministers will drive it. In the article about the attitude of the old left to education action zones—the Secretary of State should be aware of what his old friends in the north are saying about him—one head of education policy is quoted as saying:
The north is Labour's stronghold and the idea of its schools being taken over by business made a lot of people shudder.
The idea of our education policy being taken over by the old left makes many Conservative Members shudder. What worries us deeply is the fact that the Bill gives powers to the centre that will enable the old left to take over the running of our education policy. It would be for the health of the Government's education policy, and give a clear sense of where they are leading the country, if they accepted the new clause.
I was sorry to read in the press that Ministers are disappointed by the number of applications for education action zones. We are told that they are particularly disappointed by the small number of Labour authorities that have come forward. I can tell the Minister for School Standards that he will be receiving an application from Guildford; we want to take part in EAZs. One reason is that the scheme will enable us to vary our teachers' remuneration. We hope in particular to attract, to any of our schools that are not up to what we deem the appropriate standard, the quality of teaching that all children in our area deserve. Owing to the high cost of living in areas such as the one that I represent, it is very hard to attract that calibre of teacher.
Only if the Government are interested in improving the quality of education in all parts of the country—not just education action zones—and embracing the years of Conservative innovation will they remain true to their pledge to build on our improvements in education. To do so, they should support the new clause.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) for tabling the new clause, which has, indeed, encouraged us to follow our own logic. We do not want to follow the logic of the new clause.
Conservative Members have rightly identified the Government's proposed education action zones as a separate category. We want to provide the opportunity to disregard the national pay and conditions when that is felt appropriate. We look forward to seeing the details of the many applications for education action zones that have come forward. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) quoted from an article in The Times Educational Supplement, which was written a few days before the deadline for applications. By last Friday, which was the deadline and the day of publication of the TES, we were pleased with the number of applications.
Thanks to the effort of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the additional funding provided in the Budget, we can now increase the number of education action zones. As my right hon. Friend said, we want 12 established from September and a further 13 from January 1999. We look forward to those education action zones being at the forefront of innovation. That will mean giving careful consideration to appropriate pay and conditions for teachers.

Mr. Willis: Will the Minister confirm that private companies applying for education action zones are being made to jump through every conceivable hoop that the Department can create, whereas a local education authority that the Department wants to encourage to promote an education action zone has only to submit a letter of intent?

Mr. Byers: All applications are being treated in the same way. It would be unfair and inappropriate to treat one group differently from another. In all applications, whether from the private sector in partnership with local education authorities and whether school-led or local education authority-led, we are looking for proposals that will raise standards in schools.
I know that we are all excited about education action zones, but we should talk about the new clause. We are concerned that it would cause chaos in thousands of schools by allowing them to establish their own pay and conditions in place of the national agreements. Schools that wanted to follow the national conditions would have to impose them.
It will be far better to use the opportunity provided by EAZs to test different ways of paying teachers and different conditions. That will give us a national perspective on what practices work in recruitment, in rewarding teachers and in new structures for the school day and the school year. Education action zones will provide that flexibility and freedom, allowing the Secretary of State to monitor and evaluate the changes. The Government moved amendments on the first day of the Report stage to allow the Secretary of State to consider the detailed proposals of those promoting EAZs.
We have some concerns about the implications of new clause 7. The right hon. Member for Charnwood referred to one of the paragraphs of schedule 31 as the "Oratory exemption clause". I would not describe it in quite those terms myself; none the less, the fact that only two grant-maintained schools have taken advantage of the freedom to opt out of national pay and conditions demonstrates that simply giving a freedom is not the best way to encourage change.
By the end of the coming school year, education action zones will cover several hundred schools. An examination of what happens there is probably a better way of seeing whether we can begin to break down existing practice and try new ways of determining teachers' pay and conditions. In many people's minds, there is no doubt that the time has come to examine carefully teachers' contracts, pay and conditions, and education action zones will provide us with an opportunity to do that in a focused way.
Another reason why I feel that moving in the direction suggested by the new clause would cause concern is that it specifically refers to voluntary aided schools. I know that the Church authorities would not support the proposal, and would have grave reservations about the prospect of national pay and conditions being unilaterally lifted from teachers in their schools.
We believe that a better way forward would be to consider the idea in a focused way, and examine how we can develop new methods in the education action zones. That is a more appropriate way of dealing with change. New clause 7 would divert attention in schools away from their main task, which must be raising standards and providing a better quality of education than may be being provided at present. For those reasons, if the new clause is pressed to a vote, I shall ask the House to vote against it.

Mr. Dorrell: I regret the overall conclusion that the Minister has reached in his response to this brief debate. However, I draw some comfort from one or two of his comments. He made it more explicit that, in his eyes, one of the objectives of education action zones is to try out new ideas for teachers' pay and conditions. I believe that his phrase was that we could break down national terms and conditions for teachers, which represents a welcome inching forward of the Government's objectives for the zones.
I agree that it is desirable to introduce greater flexibility in pay and conditions for teachers, and I am pleased that the Minister has set out so clearly the fact that that is one of the purposes of education action zones. I regret that he thinks that the idea can be tried out only in those zones, and that there is no role for foundation schools or voluntary aided schools in pushing forward the objectives that he has set.
However, as the Minister is prepared at least to countenance the objective of testing new approaches as alternatives to national pay and conditions for teachers, and in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13

DISCONTINUANCE OF MAINTAINED RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOLS

'(1) Where a local education authority proposes the discontinuance of a maintained primary school in a rural area the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.
(2) Such referral for determination shall take place after consultation under section 28(4) has been concluded.
(3) A rural primary school is a school identified in a list under subsection (4).
(4) A local education authority shall maintain a list of rural primary schools; and in compiling and maintaining that list they shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mrs. Browning.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In some ways, the new clause could be seen as something of a tidying-up measure. On Saturday 28 February, when I was sitting at home sponging the mud off my coat ready for the countryside march in London the following day, I, in common with the rest of the nation, was treated to the sight of the Minister for School Standards gracing our television screens to make an important announcement about village schools.
We were all delighted to hear that announcement, and I hastened to obtain a copy of the press release that accompanied the Minister's television appearance. In it, he is reported as saying:
Today, I am announcing tough new protection for village schools … we have decided that any proposal by a Local Education Authority to close a rural school will be called in to the Secretary of State for decision.
Further, Ministers will have a presumption against closure. And Ministers will have particular regard to the need to provide access to a local school for rural communities.
That is all jolly good stuff, which we can totally support. Hence the new clause.
The Minister went on to say:
Of course, we cannot guarantee that no school will ever close. But these changes will give village schools strong new protection".
I have explained how supportive we are of the announcement, but I was doubly surprised: not only by the sudden announcement on 28 February, but because the Committee had been sitting for some time—we had had no fewer than 19 sittings at that time. I sat through all the sittings of the Committee, and I do not recall the Minister saying that this was a matter of any priority for the Government.
It seems rather strange that, out of the blue—two days after the final Committee sitting—the Minister made this announcement on Saturday evening television. The Government were clearly in trouble that weekend. Some Ministers said that they would be attending the countryside rally, while others said that they would not, because they thought that the whole thing was a put-up job. However, here was the Minister rushing to the support of rural communities and trying to pour a little oil on what would be a troubled weekend for the Government from the media.
We have questions for the Minister, and I should be grateful if he would break the habit of a lifetime and answer the specifics tonight.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): That was unkind.

Mrs. Browning: Yes, it was rather unkind—I withdraw it. I want the Government to vote with us tonight, so I shall try not to be unkind to the Minister for the remainder of our discussions on the new clause.
Does the Government's promise apply for any restricted length of time? For example, can we assume that it will continue after the Bill receives Royal Assent? Or was it just a short-term measure to bolster the Government through a political problem that will no longer apply once the Bill has received Royal Assent?
The Minister describes this as "tough new protection". If it is tough, it should have the statutory protection of the law. If it is new, we would have expected the Minister to table a Government new clause when the Committee reconvened—as it did for several more sittings—or on Report to put into statute the tough new measures he announced on television on Saturday 28 February. It might be that, as a busy person, the Minister is minded to table the new clause in another place.
Will the Minister clarify how the promise and the tough new protection will fit in with schedule 7 and clause 33, which clearly still require the Secretary of State to contact local education authorities to ask them to look at the numbers in their schools and to deal with the rationalisation of surplus places? Clearly the Minister has a new strong power in mind, so that, when the Secretary of State considers each school that comes to his desk, he will almost certainly wish to make changes to the powers he currently has to require LEAs to go through the rationalisation process and to submit to him—as the Bill proposes—some plan as to how they are to deal with rationalisation.
Schedule 7 proposes that, in some cases, the rationalisation of surplus places will require LEAs to come forward with proposals which could result in the discontinuance of a school. I assume that the Secretary of State will wish to make some modification to the Bill on that. There seems no point in them going through a paper exercise if there is to be a presumption against closure. One could assume that village primary schools will be exempted from that requirement.

Mr. Byers: If the hon. Lady, as well as watching the teatime news, occasionally referred to the Official Report, she would have read my written answer on 26 February about the removal of surplus school places, in which I gave a clear commitment that, in considering surplus places, local authorities must take into account such circumstances as geography. That must be a factor in the consideration of rural schools.

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but a written answer is not tough new statutory protection. If the promise he made on television in such specific terms is tough and new, why did not the Government table such a new clause in Committee or on Report, rather than leave it to the Opposition to do so? Perhaps the matter slipped his mind—I know that his

officials are busy. As I said—I shall not tease him—we are very much in favour of what he said, and we shall be pleased to accept the support of Labour Members in the Lobby if the new clause is pressed to a Division.
I hope that the Minister will answer my specific questions, and also say what he had in mind when, as a qualification, he said:
Of course, we cannot guarantee that no school will ever close.
Was he referring to rationalisation of places? What number of pupils does he think makes a village school viable?
I have been a Member of Parliament for six years, in which time the only school in my constituency to close had a total school roll of 14. In my experience—and I am sure in that of most hon. Members—when a school of any category, but particularly a village primary school, has been considered for closure, the matter has almost certainly gone to the Secretary of State, whom Members of Parliament and governing bodies lobby. That certainly happened under the Conservative Administration, except on the rare occasion when there were no objections. If, over and above that, there will be new, tough powers to protect rural primary schools, I want to know what, specifically, the Minister has in mind.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). The Minister's honeyed words at the Dispatch Box sit extremely ill with the letter, signed by an official from his Department, that was sent on 9 March to Kent education authority. Hon. Members will, I hope, share my deep disquiet at the fact that the letter contained a list of 45 secondary and primary schools in Kent, including some in rural areas—it could be termed a hit list of schools for closure on grounds of surplus places. The existence of such a list is a matter of deep concern to me, and, I know, to a number of my hon. Friends.
The list includes no fewer than four schools in the rural parts of my constituency: Shipbourne primary school; Blacklands junior school; Hever Church of England primary school; and the Eden Valley school. The wording of the letter—for which, of course, the Secretary of State has responsibility—is somewhat threatening. For example, in its request to the local authority, it states:
In each case please set out the reasons for the surplus, as far as this can be ascertained, and the justification for continuing to maintain all the schools on the list still open and not yet proposed for closure.
As I said, that sits ill with the Minister's words.
For two critical reasons, I hope that the House will support the new clause. First, the continuation of village schools is indispensable. Schools are the lifeblood of a village. If the school is lost, so is the heart of the village—young people will leave, and others from outside will be reluctant to move in.
4.45 pm
Secondly, I believe that the Department's exercise rests on a false premise—that it is possible to predict in the long term the demand for places in a village school. In my experience, it is not possible to make such long-term—or even medium-term—predictions about demand for places.
The St. Mark's Church of England infants school in the village of Eccles, which was part of my constituency before the boundary changes, was once considered for closure. However, only last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), as Secretary of State and Education and Employment, authorised the upgrading of that school to a full-scale primary school, because of the influx of people into the village and the surrounding areas.
That graphically illustrates the fact that the demand for places at a school can vary enormously over 10 or 20 years. I believe that the Bill's provisions for the protection of rural schools need strengthening, so I warmly support the new clause.

Mr. Willis: I think that the Minister will, on reflection, come to regret his statement before the countryside rally to prevent the people of North Tyneside from marching on his home later that day. He made a foolish promise—if he meant what he said, the Government should support the new clause, as it would bear out what he said on television, and the commitment that he made in his press release. We do not support the new clause, however, and perhaps the Government will agree with our position.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made a passionate plea for rural schools in Kent—any hon. Member whose constituency contains a large number of rural schools could have made almost the same speech. I doubt whether any hon. Member—especially those who represent rural areas—does not accept that the protection of village schools is important, provided that they meet appropriate educational standards and are supported by the local community.
What has happened in the past four or five years, however, does not bear out what the Conservatives now say. Since 1992, 450 village schools were closed, and—until the Minister gave his commitment—thousands were under threat because of the lack of resources. Many small village schools—especially those with fewer than 25 pupils—are concerned that they have to live on a year-by-year basis.
The new clause will do nothing to preserve village schools. It would undermine the Government's attempt to create a level playing field. All schools, be they urban or rural, small or large, should be given the same consideration when a local education authority proposes closure. The Government's intention in the legislation was to make the decisions closer to the people, giving local education authorities a duty to plan for places and to make proper recommendations on closure.
The issue of the closure of small village primary schools is very real, as is the issue of surplus places. It is clearly nonsense to include the issue of surplus places in the whole of an LEA's provision in a measure designed to apply to small rural primary schools.
If we are to maintain those schools, we have to accept that there will be surplus places in them, unless there is expansion in particular villages. The communities in many of the affected areas—especially the Yorkshire dales, near my constituency—remain relatively stable: numbers fluctuate, but they do not go up or down by huge leaps or bounds.
All schools should be treated the same, and LEAs should be obliged to make rational decisions close to the people. We would prefer it to be up to the LEA, in consultation with local communities, to make decisions about the closure of schools, be they small rural primary schools or large urban secondary schools, on the basis of standards, of what is required for the community, and of what is financially acceptable to the authority.

Mrs. May: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) summed up the debate about the new clause when he said that, if the Minister meant what he said in the media about small village schools, he would support it.
The new clause is designed to put into effect what the Minister stated was the Government's policy. I hope that he will be able to put us out of our misery by saying that he does indeed support it, but I have a suspicion that he may not do so. That says an awful lot about the Government's attitude to rural communities and the cynical way in which he was willing to appear on television at the drop of a hat to announce a new policy to pacify those who are genuinely concerned about the Government's general attack on the rural community.
In Committee, we debated the removal of the right of parish and town councils to appoint governors to the governing bodies of their local schools. That is an issue about which my local parish and town councils are extremely concerned. They have written to me to point out that the school is an essential part of the local community, as is the parish council. It is important to retain the heart of the local community, especially in dispersed rural communities, which is represented by the village school.
The Minister tried to placate people in rural areas by suggesting that the Government are adopting a more helpful policy towards village schools than was intended when the Bill was first drafted. There are 14 new clauses and well over 100 amendments on the amendment paper today. More than half are Government amendments, yet nowhere in them is there an attempt by the Government to place on a statutory basis the new policy that they claim, hand on heart, to have adopted. That says more than anything else about the Minister's press release and appearance on television. The policy he announced is a policy in words only. If it were not, the Government would support the new clause.
The Government should think again about rural schools, which play a key part in the community. They may find that the issue comes into conflict with their announcements on infant class sizes. They have said that, if a 31st child is due to come into a village school, either he or she could go to another rural school, which may indeed have been closed, or the money could be given to the first school to accommodate that child. They will have to think carefully about the interaction of their policy on rural schools with their commitment on infant class sizes.
If he is serious about the policy that he announced in the national media, the Minister should accept new clause 13 with open arms, and thank the Opposition for having put into words, for inclusion in the Bill, a policy that he claims to support.

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) wondered why the


Minister's honeyed words had not translated into an amendment to the Bill. The answer is simply that a march by 385,000 people generates a media response from the Government, but that, to get a measure into one of their education Bills, one has to belong to the union.
In whatever areas the unions have opined regarding the Bill—on partnership provision between LEAs and independent schools, for example, or on terms and conditions—the Government bend to what they are told behind closed doors; but when it comes to trying to pacify rural areas, it is a different story. Unless the Minister can spin a convincing tale, we will draw the natural conclusion that what he said was all for effect, with no real meaning.
I am delighted to support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. It was a previous Angela—Dame Angela Rumbold—who, as a schools Minister in the previous Government, first outlined a clear Government pledge in support of village schools. She did so in February 1987, which I remember because I was making my first attempt to enter Parliament. Despite my lack of success on that occasion, we all learned the importance of village schools.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke of a level playing field. In a rural area, such as the part of Cornwall in which I lived for 10 years, there is no level playing field. It sometimes takes a wider view, which may come from a departmental angle rather than from a local education authority, to balance the needs of a rural area against the diktats of the pure numbers and costs of keeping a school open.
In the light of the epic announcement last week of the ending of outdoor lavatories at schools, how many of the schools involved are village primary schools?
Noble though the Minister's aim may be of eliminating that inheritance from, as he told us last week, the Victorian era—I am glad that he does not blame everything on the previous Conservative Government—what is the education priority for a village primary school that is facing closure? Is it to spend on average £60,000 to provide loos for the children, or is it to spend it in a way that will guarantee that the school continues through hard times as well as good?
5 pm
I know from experience of village schools in my constituency that they are often on a knife edge because of their financial situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, many will face particular pressure because of the Government's commitment on class sizes.
One village school near where I live has 70 children and can just afford to provide two full teachers, which makes for a class size of 35. I challenge Ministers to show me any primary school in which children get a better education than they do at that school. It serves nearly all the children in the village, and if it has to reduce the numbers in its classes to 30, not only will some children in the village have to travel much further to school, causing yet more congestion on roads when commuter traffic is at its height, but the very survival of the school will be put at risk because of the loss of income from the additional children.
These are serious questions for the Minister. Will schools that have the £60,000 be given the option to choose to spend it on higher priorities, and will schools that have more than 30 children per class be allowed to put the survival of the school before the priority of a class size of 30?

Mr. Blunkett: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the acquisition of an inside toilet might persuade some of his constituents who are putting their hard-earned money into private education to send their children to that excellent infants school instead?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that people who send their children to schools in Surrey take into account a range of factors. The factor that he has suggested is pretty well bottom of the list. It is not a key factor in deciding where one sends one's child to school. Parents will consider the performance of the school—for example, in attaining literacy standards, and its proximity to their home.
Frankly, as someone who has survived the indignity, as the right hon. Gentleman sees it, of an outside loo when I was at school—he may judge for himself how much damage it has done to my character and personality—I hold no brief against my parents for deciding on that school despite the lack of basic necessities. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is absurd, and I note that he avoided the real question, which was why a school that might need the £60,000 to keep going should be obliged to pander to his whims and sentiments at the expense of its very survival.

Mr. Byers: A number of issues have been raised in this brief debate on new clause 13, and I will try to answer all of them. First, I must deal with the concerns outlined by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)—in particular, the letter sent by an official from my Department. Letters were sent asking each local education authority to consider surplus places—an issue that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised—and drawing attention to schools that had more than 25 per cent. of places empty.
The Government take the view that local authorities should review provision to ensure that value for money is achieved. In Kent, 48 primary schools and 25 secondary schools have more than 25 per cent. of their places vacant, and it is appropriate for the Government to ask the local authority for an explanation.
However, that must be seen in the context of my written reply to a question from the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 26 February on surplus places and the duty and responsibility of local education authorities. In that reply, I clearly said that the Government recognise
that authorities will want to take into account any unusual circumstances, for example geography and social make-up."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 364.]
Therefore, in answer to our request for information about those schools, it is for the Kent local education authority to point out the rural communities that might be served by them. It is clearly important for both the Government and Kent local education authority to consider the needs of the school in the context of the community it serves.
I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. We are not considering all schools equally. As was said in the statement on 28 February, we recognise that, yes, the matter should be determined by the Secretary of State, but, more importantly, that there should be a presumption against closure, which is vital if we are to offer rural schools far greater protection than they have had.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Minister will be aware that, in the list of Kent schools to which he has extensively referred, no fewer than 10 are Church of England primary schools. He will also be aware of the considerable concern about what will happen to denominational schools that face the problem of the 31st child.
Parents who seek to place their children in denominational schools put first and foremost the teaching of the faith and are looking for the denominational school concerned. If 10 under-subscribed Church of England primary schools are taking children who could not get into over-subscribed schools of the same denomination, would that be a sufficiently unusual circumstance to guarantee that the school continued to function even if it remained heavily under-subscribed?

Mr. Byers: I will deal in a second with the issues that we might need to take into account when determining the schools that might be closed. As we made clear in the announcement on 28 February, we are not saying, "Never, ever," to the closure of a village or rural school. There must be circumstances in which a closure would be wholly appropriate, but we will consider whether parents are being offered real choice of denominational education if that is what they want. That factor must be taken into account.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady is aware that, in the Government's discussions with the Church authorities on our class size pledge and our policy towards surplus places, we have reached a situation in which the authorities are broadly supportive of the Government's position. The Church education authorities have approached us about our pledge to reduce class sizes in infant schools, and broadly welcome our measures.

Miss Widdecombe: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. He has several times prayed in aid the attitude of the Churches to this issue. Is it not the case that the Roman Catholic Church at any rate broadly supports some limit on class sizes, and would want such a limitation to come about, but not at the expense of denying Roman Catholic education to Roman Catholic children?

Mr. Byers: That is the case, which is why, elsewhere in the Bill, we have made specific admissions provisions to meet those concerns. There is a special provision that admissions will not be dealt with by the adjudicator, as normally would be the case, but referred to the Secretary of State.
We inserted that provision to meet the concerns expressed by the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Our approach has been clear: that, if the Bill needs to be

amended to make it better, we are prepared to amend it. We had several constructive meetings with representatives of the Church education authorities. In the light of their views and their concerns about the Bill as originally drafted, we made several changes. The admissions change is an example of one that we made because we believe that it meets the reasonable concerns of the Church authorities, and makes the Bill better.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, if there is concern in Kent, I am happy to write to the chief education officer to clarify the Government's view on the matter. Geography and service to a rural village community are factors that must be considered in replying to letters from officials about surplus places. I hope that that clarifies the Government's thinking, and will reassure parents and teachers in the schools to which he referred.
It is interesting that the Conservatives seem suddenly to have discovered the importance of rural schools in this debate.

Mr. Dorrell: We offered exactly the same safeguard.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives had exactly the safeguard that is being offered. He fails to realise that there are safeguards; I use the plural, because there are more than one. The great weakness of new clause 13 is that it seeks only to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. We need to go far beyond that if we are serious about protecting rural schools.
Since 1983, under the previous Government, 450 rural village schools have been closed. The Bill means that, between now and September 1999, such matters will be referred to the Secretary of State, as I made clear in my press notice. Most importantly, there will be a presumption against closure. Ministers will have particular regard to the need to provide access to a local school for local communities. No such presumption operated under the previous Government. That is why they were able to embark on wholesale closure of village schools. I will deal in a moment with the framework after September 1999.
It is not enough to refer such matters to the Secretary of State. There has to be a referral, and a presumption against closure, which will operate between now and 1999. The rate of closures under the previous Government works out at more than 40 a year. We will at least guarantee that, by September 1999, there will not have been such a closure rate.

Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: I want first to describe what we are doing to ensure that village schools provide the quality of education that the children attending them want. I do not want to take an announcement away from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but in April he will make known the allocations for the national grid for learning. They will make it clear that village schools will be linked to the national grid. By harnessing the benefits of new


technology, we will be able to provide pupils in rural schools with a breadth and range of education experience that has been denied them.

Mrs. Browning: If it is simply a question of adding presumption of closure to new clause 13, or to another amendment, would the Minister accept such an amendment in another place?

Mr. Byers: I will not, because I was talking about safeguards, of which there need to be a number. It is not only a referral to the Secretary of State, a presumption against closure, and linking rural schools to the national grid for learning. It is also about reducing class sizes, which will benefit many schools, and giving them the benefits of the new deal capital money, which will make a real difference to rural primary schools.
I have an illustration of the contrasting approaches. Under the previous Government, Willington county primary school in Lincolnshire was closed in 1995, despite 28 statutory objections, an action committee and a delegation led by the local Member of Parliament. There were 23 children on the roll, and the alternative school was almost three miles away.
It is worth contrasting that with what happened to Edenham primary school, which is also in Lincolnshire, and which serves a village rural community. As a result of £97,000 from our new deal capital money, linked with £17,700 funded from people locally, it was able to provide new classrooms, making the school even more popular. Those measures are important, because they are part of the safeguards that rural schools need.
5.15 pm
The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) referred to what will happen after September 1999. That is important, because a new framework will operate under the Bill. Such matters will go to the school organisation committee. If there is no agreement, they will go to the local adjudicator. From September 1999, the Secretary of State will issue guidance about the measures. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will listen, I will take them through what will happen, and what local parents will be able to do if they are unhappy about the final decision.
The school organisation committee will have to act in a reasonable way. If it fails to do so, and, for example, ignores the advice, guidance and regulations laid down by the Secretary of State, it can be challenged by parents for not acting in a reasonable way. If the matter goes to the adjudicator, he will also have to follow the guidance laid down by the Secretary of State, and that guidance will once again be a presumption against closure. If local parents feel aggrieved that the adjudicator has failed to take into account the guidance provided by the Secretary of State, they will be able to subject him to judicial review, which is exactly the position in respect of the Secretary of State at the moment.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood has not come to terms with the Bill. He needs to be aware that, between now and September 1999, every issue to do with potential closures of village schools will be referred to the

Secretary of State. From September 1999, we move into a new school framework. When that happens, the school organisation committee and the adjudicator will have to act in line with guidance from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's guidance will include a presumption against closure. Despite crocodile tears from Conservative Members on behalf of rural village schools, they closed 450 in their period in office. That is the reality.
The Government have put in place safeguards and measures that will protect rural primary schools. We are acting where the previous Government failed to act. Whether under the existing arrangements or under the new framework that takes effect from September next year, we will provide the safeguards and resources to ensure that rural primary schools will provide high-quality education to meet the needs of their local communities.

Mrs. Browning: I once had a go at tapestry. The most frustrating thing was having to unpick the bits that went wrong. I was reminded of that by the Minister. I might take it up again.
What the Minister said on 28 February was short of the full story. We have now had the full story. When he said that an LEA' s proposal to close a rural school would be called in by the Secretary of State for decision, the assumption among parents and in rural schools was that the Secretary of State would personally intervene in future, with a presumption against closure to protect rural primary schools. At the same time as the Minister was saying that, he was taking a Bill through Committee. He knew that there was a cut-off date about a year after the Bill would receive Royal Assent, after which the whole system would be changed.
An adjudicator will make a judgment independently, on the merits of a case put before him or her. It is clear that, whatever guidance the Secretary of State gives, there is no comparison between an adjudicator's decision and something being called in by the Secretary of State.
I raise again a point that I made in Committee. When a school is due to be closed, Members of Parliament rightly wish to represent their constituents. They have the power, with the Secretary of State's permission, to take delegations to Ministers in the Department to make sure that their case is raised at the highest levels of Government. They can call Ministers to account—at least, they certainly could under the previous Government—on the Floor of the House for decisions they make. The Government's proposals are a departure from that.
The Minister has revealed tonight that, on 28 February, he had to come to the aid of the party on an issue that was different from anything that his Department normally has to deal with. He had to stitch together some press statement that would make his part in the Government sound user-friendly to the rural communities, at the eleventh hour. He is now having to unpick what he said, so that he can continue to take the Bill through the House without having to amend it to honour that pledge. It is a matter of honour.
If the Minister really believes what he said on 28 February but cannot accept the wording of new clause 13, he could amend the Bill in another place, or he could


have tabled an amendment on Report. The fact that he did not table an amendment in Committee or on Report to back up the pledge he gave on 28 February shows that, for all the rhetoric and going round the houses on money for this and money for that, rural primary schools are no better off with all these new pledges than they were before.
Measures in the Bill that we had already debated by 28 February made that clear. We had already been through that part of the Bill. Liberal Democrat Members know that that is the case. Rural primary schools' fate was already signed and sealed, because we had dealt with the adjudicator by that stage; but that did not figure in the Minister's press release. The press release did not tell the full story, if I may use those words.
As I have the attention of the two Liberal Democrat Members, may I say that this is the first time that I have ever heard a Liberal Democrate—Liberal Democrat—[Laughter.] "Crate" was perhaps the right word. This is the first time that I have heard a Liberal Democrat make the case for not taking into account the problems of rural areas. They are normally the first on their feet to say that there are special circumstances when rural issues are debated. I have to say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that I feel an "In Touch" coming on.

Mr. Don Foster: I remind the hon. Lady that "In Touch" is the newsletter put out, rarely, by the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrat one, which goes out more frequently, is called "Focus".
Does the hon. Lady agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough did not make the comments that she has just said he made? Does she accept that, when closure of any school is considered, three criteria should be taken into account? The first is the educational impact that the closure may have. The second is the financial implications. The third should be the impact that the closure may have on the local community. All three should be taken into account on every closure, whether of a small rural primary school or of any other school.

Mrs. Browning: I did mean "In Touch". I do feel a Conservative "In Touch" coming forward. The record will show exactly what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said in putting his case.
I support what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says, except that, as he knows—I shall not waste the time of the House in rehearsing this too long—the effect of closure of a school on a rural community is different from the effect on an urban community. There is often no nearby school in a rural community, and transport problems are exacerbated by the closure of rural primary schools.
I am disappointed—but, perhaps cynically, not surprised—that the Minister says that he will not support the new clause tonight. I am saddened by that. It will make many people, especially in rural areas, question the statement that he made on television on 28 February. I ask the House to support rural primary schools, and to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 319.

Division No. 220]
[5.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lidington, David


Arbuthnot, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Baldry, Tony
Loughton, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Luff, Peter


Bercow, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Beresford, Sir Paul
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Blunt, Crispin
MacKay, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Malins, Humfrey


Brady, Graham
Maples, John


Brazier, Julian
Mates, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
May, Mrs Theresa


Burns, Simon
Moss, Malcolm


Butterfill, John
Nicholls, Patrick



Chapman, Sir Sydney
Norman, Archie


(Chipping Barnet)
Ottaway, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Page, Richard


Clappison, James
Paice, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Paterson, Owen


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Pickles, Eric


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Prior, David


(Rushcliffe)
Randall, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Colvin, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ruffley, David


Day, Stephen
St Aubyn, Nick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Sayeed, Jonathan


Duncan, Alan
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Evans, Nigel
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Faber, David
Soames, Nicholas


Flight, Howard
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spring, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Swayne, Desmond


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Greenway, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Walter, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Wardle, Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Hunter, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilkinson, John


Johnson Smith,
Willetts, David


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Yeo, Tim


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leigh, Edward
Sir David Madel and



Letwin, Oliver
Mr. James Cran.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ainger, Nick
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Allan, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dawson, Hilton


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dean, Mrs Janet



Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Denham, John


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Baker, Norman
Dobbin, Jim


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Donohoe, Brian H


Barnes, Harry
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Drown, Ms Julia


Battle, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive


Benton, Joe
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Berry, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Best, Harold
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Liz
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flynn, Paul


Borrow, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Fyfe, Maria


Brake, Tom
Galloway, George


Brand, Dr Peter
Gapes, Mike


Breed, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Browne, Desmond
Grant, Bernie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buck, Ms Karen
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Grogan, John


Burgon, Colin
Gunnell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hancock, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hanson, David


Canavan, Dennis
Harris, Dr Evan


Caplin, Ivor
Harvey, Nick


Casale, Roger
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caton, Martin
Healey, John


Chaytor, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chidgey, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda
Heppell, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clwyd, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coaker, Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, lain
Hoon, Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)





Johnson, Miss Melanie
Perham, Ms Linda


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pope, Greg


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rendel, David


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
(Hamilton S)


Laxton, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Lepper, David
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roy, Frank


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Love, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Sanders, Adrian


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonagh, Siobhain
Savidge, Malcolm


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian



McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McIsaac, Shona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mactaggart, Fiona
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mitchell, Austin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moffatt, Laura
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stringer, Graham


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stunell, Andrew


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mountford, Kali
(Dewsbury)


Mudie, George
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Oaten, Mark
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Eddie
Todd, Mark


Olner, Bill
Tonge, Dr Jenny


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Öpik, Lembit
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)






Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Willis, Phil


Tyler, Paul
Wills, Michael


Wallace, James
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Audrey


Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


Webb, Steve
Wray, James


White, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. David Clelland and


(Swansea W)
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 24

REINSTITUTION OF STANDARDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PREMISES

'.—Section 542 (Prescribed standards for school premises) of the Education Act 1996 shall be amended as follows—
(a) before "regulations" in subsection (1), there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (1A)".
(b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted—
(1A) the minimum standard that regulations will prescribe are those as set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am conscious of the fact that, later today, we shall have an opportunity to debate the issue of Office for Standards in Education inspections and the chief inspector's annual report. Although there may be many hon. Members who find some aspects of the chief inspector's comments controversial, I doubt that any would disagree with one of his comments in his 1996 annual report:
Teachers who lack proper resources or who work in poor buildings experience problems which at best frustrate and at worst defeat their best efforts to do a decent job.
The chief inspector was talking not only about the quality of the buildings in terms of their fabric, but about the availability of appropriate space in which pupils can learn and teachers teach. Many of us are well aware of the serious detrimental impact that classroom overcrowding can have on the education of children.
The effect of the new clause is to reinstate into legislation requirements for minimum space standards. Those standards existed for a number of years, but were removed by the previous Administration in September 1996. When they were removed, there was an outcry from the Opposition parties—from the Liberal Democrats and from the then official Opposition, the Labour party. The minimum space standards which we are debating were laid out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, which established space standards in respect of recreation areas, playing fields, teaching accommodation, school land, school accommodation and even provision for boarders, and the individual regulations included a minimum net area of 2.3 sq m for each pupil in a nursery school.
The House will be well aware that very many of our schools, especially our primary schools, are bursting at the seams, not least because the schools standard

number—the number of pupils that a school must admit—was based on the bulge years of the 1980s, when every bit of space in schools was used. As a result, very popular schools, and those in population growth areas, are too full. The situation is made even worse when, as sometimes happens, the admission limit set by a local education authority is higher than the standard number, creating real difficulty for many schools.
The capacity needs of our schools have changed since the introduction of the concept of the standard number. There have been huge changes in the requirement, not least because of changes in relation to the national curriculum and changes in our approach to providing support for children with special educational needs. Rightly, there has also been much greater concern about health and safety issues.
In those circumstances, it seems appropriate that, instead of the current general guidance, clear regulations are laid down on the space standards that should apply in our schools. One would assume that to be the view of the present Government, because, when in opposition, they were vociferous about that issue.
I draw the attention of the House to comments by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), now Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in a speech when in opposition:
There is nothing clever about a Government who … have now decided to deregulate the space available in our classrooms and the area available for leisure and recreation … if the schools do not have the space available, there are two answers. The Government can either provide the resources to ensure that they have the space and the safeguards, or they can deregulate and pretend that the problem does not exist.
Referring to the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), he said that she was
bowing and capitulating to right-wing pressures on her, rather than meeting the needs of the service and making the provision required to improve our children's educational standards and to ensure the proper teaching that classroom staff want to deliver to the children in their charge."—[Official Report, 18 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 124–27.]
Those comments by the present Secretary of State were backed up by several Labour Members. I especially draw the attention of the House to the words of the present Co-Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), in that debate. She said:
The new proposals"—
to remove the space standards—
will lower standards, not improve them. They will prepare the ground for further cuts in capital investment in our schools, not lead to the much-needed physical improvement in our schools".
She said that the regulations that removed those space standards were
short-sighted and wrong. They should not be introduced, and they cannot stand the test of time. They are wrong for our schools, they are wrong for our teachers, and, most importantly, they are wrong for our children.
I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Barking said on that occasion. It was wrong to remove those minimum space standards, and the new clause gives an opportunity to reinstate them, which is obviously the wish of many members of the Labour party.
The idea of pupil entitlement to a reasonable learning environment was lost when the previous Government abandoned school premises regulations, but, as the hon. Member for Barking said in that debate, reinstating space standards is about
sensible rules laid down by Parliament to ensure that minimum standards are enjoyed by all our children in all schools."—[Official Report, 16 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 132–34.]
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, so I hope that hon. Members will support new clause 24.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I share a belief in the need to ensure a quality learning environment in our schools, because we consider that high-quality education takes place where children have access to the facilities that they deserve. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—and ask the House not to support new clause 24—because I do not believe that, by locking ourselves into the regulations that were appropriate in 1981, we shall provide the accommodation and buildings that are necessary for our children into the next century. New clause 24 would require us to return to the position in 1981.
The hon. Member for Bath rightly refers to the need to ensure that we invest in school buildings, and to ensure that we do not use the fact that there are no regulations under the Bill as an excuse to cut capital investment. The previous Government used the deregulation of school premises as an excuse to cut schools' capital spending. The present Government intend to increase the amount that we spend on schools' capital, but in a way that is flexible, and meets the needs of a variety of schools throughout the country. We are not convinced that the best way to do that would be to implement the 1981 regulations.
5.45 pm
We shall require authorities to prepare asset management plans, in which they will review their current accommodation, giving priority to those buildings and school premises that need to be updated, and that need investment to provide the type of accommodation in which high-quality learning can take place.
The asset management plans will not be filed away in the Department. They will provide the opportunity for investment with public money and—perhaps most important—will enable the private sector to support investment in school buildings. It has emerged from discussions between the Government and the private sector that the private sector needs, in effect, an audit of the condition of school premises, to make possible its financial support for increased investment in school buildings.
The Government are investing well in excess of £1 billion in schools capital as part of our new deal for schools, based on the experience this year, when £83 million of public spending led to £115 million of investment in our schools. We believe that, with funding from local authorities, Church authorities and the private sector, the new deal will make it possible for about £2 billion extra to be spent on schools capital.
In last week's Budget statement, it was announced that an extra £90 million would be made available for schools capital. The Bill provides new safeguards on the disposal of playing fields. We are increasing investment and safeguarding important assets.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that we should not simply defend the status quo and that changes are needed. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue. I make this contribution in the hope that, when he has heard what I have to say, he will feel able to ask leave to withdraw the motion and new clause 24.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Before the general election, there was considerable speculation from the Labour Front Bench about how much money would be needed to bring schools throughout the country up to what we would consider an acceptable standard; the figures suggested ran into several billion pounds. In the year that has nearly elapsed since Labour came to power, has the Department for Education and Employment done any work on finalising what it now estimates to be the total capital that will need to be spent on the school building programme over the next five years to bring schools to what we would all consider to be a desirable state of repair?

Mr. Byers: One reason why we want local education authorities to carry out their own asset management plans is to provide exactly that sort of detailed information. There will be 150 LEAs in England with effect from April this year, and all will be required to develop asset management plans. Once we have those, we will be able to identify the precise cost of bringing premises up to a suitable standard, not just for 1998 but for the next century as well. It will also allow us to trigger in investment from the private sector, which will be important in meeting our objectives.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath and the concerns he expressed, at the moment we are operating under the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. It is our intention to review the regulations in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, recognising that they need to be changed to meet the objectives that I think we share. We will be prepared not just to review them in the light of the commitments in the Bill on, for example, school playing fields; if more general amendments are necessary—the hon. Gentleman may wish to suggest some for consideration—we will consider them.
I hope that, in response to what I hope the hon. Gentleman will view as a positive response to the issues which he raised, we will be able to avoid a Division on the new clause. However, if he presses the motion to a vote, I shall ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister was generous and positive in his response to this brief debate, but I shall still urge my hon. Friends to press the new clause to a Division.
I think that the whole House will welcome the Government's plans for an audit of the state of school buildings. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, we are well aware of the magnitude of the figure likely to be revealed by the audit. Some suggest that the backlog of repairs and maintenance to our school buildings amounts to £4.3 billion—and that does not take into account some of the additional sums that will be needed for the reduction of class sizes in key stage 1 primary schools and the overcrowding in a number of other schools. I suspect that the figure which my hon. Friend suggested is probably right.
It is also welcome that the Government are putting additional money into the repair and maintenance of school buildings. However, we should not be fooled by the sums of money that the Minister mentioned. When he spoke about £1 billion or so, he failed to remind us that that would be spent over a five-year period. When that is taken into account, the additional amount per year is much smaller than he suggested. The hon. Gentleman also did not point out that some of that money is to be used for capital purposes to meet another of the Government's election pledges, which is to reduce class sizes in key stage 1. Initially, the Government said that that pledge would be met entirely from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, but we were then told in the Budget that additional capital money would be required from other sources.
We are pleased that some of that money will be used to get rid of outdoor loos in some of our primary schools. Hon. Members will have found it surprising that the Minister was able to announce the precise number of schools that will be assisted, when only two weeks ago, in answer to a question from me, he said that information on the number of schools with outside loos was not centrally available. I am delighted that, in only two weeks, he has been able to do such a detailed study and give the House the assurances that he did.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I am sure that he would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. In replying to his parliamentary question, I did say that the Government did not hold the information centrally. However, we discovered subsequently that the two local authority associations had conducted their own survey, and it was on the basis of that information that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to announce that we shall assist more than 600 schools.

Mr. Foster: I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed my version of events. Two weeks ago, the Minister did not know that information; now he does. I am sure that the House is pleased that he has obtained that information and made the appropriate announcement.
I intend to press the new clause to a vote. The Minister said that it would lock us into the 1981 regulations, but that would be true for only a very brief period. The Minister was right to say that the regulations needed updating. However, the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that we put back on to the statute book a requirement to have premises regulations. When the Labour party was in opposition, it said that it was passionately in favour of that. We still believe in what the Labour party believed in less than 18 months ago. For that reason, I ask the House to support new clause 24.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 279.

Division No. 221]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Brake, Tom


Baker, Norman
Brand, Dr Peter


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Breed, Colin


Beggs, Roy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cable, Dr Vincent


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chidgey, David





Dafis, Cynog
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hancock, Mike
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Stunell, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tonge,Dr jenny


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tyler, Paul


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Webb, Steve


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Kirkwood, Archy
Willis, Phil


Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oaten, Mark
Mr. Edward Davey and


Öpik, Lembit
Mr. Adrian Sanders.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cos'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Dawson, Hilton


Battle, John
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bayley, Hugh
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Drown, Ms Julia


Blackman, Liz
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Edwards, Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Loma


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard

Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Gardiner, Barry


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Grant, Bernie


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grogan, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hanson, David


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Crausby, David
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Hope, Phil






Hopkins, Kelvin
Olner, Bill


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Humble, Mrs Joan
Perham, Ms Linda


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Prosser, Gwyn


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Ms Jenny
Radice, Giles


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kemp, Fraser
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
(Hamilton S)


Kidney, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rogers, Allan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rooney, Terry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rowlands, Ted


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roy, Frank


Laxton, Bob
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lepper, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Levitt, Tom
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCabe, Steve
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McIsaac, Shona
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive


Mactaggart, Fiona
Spellar, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mandelson, Peter
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stoate, Dr Howard


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Meale, Alan
Stringer, Graham


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Miller, Andrew
(Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


OHara, Eddie
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)





Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Audrey


Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


White, Brian
Wray, James


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



(Swansea W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. David Clelland and


Wills, Michael
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 21

KINDS OF FOUNDATION AND VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS AND TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 19, line 10, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 48 to 51, 31, 65 and 70 to 75.

Mr. Byers: These are all technical amendments affecting voluntary schools. The vast majority of voluntary schools have foundations, but a small number do not. As the Bill is worded, a school would need to have a foundation to join the voluntary category. The amendments ensure that, if a voluntary school or a former grant-maintained school wishes to become a new voluntary aided school, it can do so without the procedural necessity of creating a foundation. The amendments do not more than that, and I hope that they will be agreeable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 19, line 13, leave out 'and'.

No. 49, in page 19, line 15, at end insert
'; and
(c) those not falling within either of paragraphs (a) and (b) but having been either of the following immediately before the appointed day, namely—
(i) a voluntary school, or
(ii) a grant-maintained school that was a voluntary school immediately before becoming grant-maintained,
within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.
No. 50, in page 19, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
'(i) any body of persons (whether incorporated or not but excluding the governing body) which holds land on trust for the purposes of the school, or
(ii) a foundation body;'.

No. 51, in page 19, line 20, leave out from 'if' to end of line 22 and insert—

'(i) such a body of persons exists for holding land on trust for the purposes of the school, or
(ii) the school belongs to a group of schools for which a foundation body acts under this section;'.
No. 31, in page 19, line 37, leave out
'by schools in connection with'
and insert
'in connection with schools'.


No. 65, in page 20, line 13, at end insert—
'(6A) Regulations under subsection (5) may, in connection with any matters falling within that subsection—

(a) modify any provision made by or under this Part of this Act;
(b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;
(c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.'.

No. 70, in page 20, line 18, at end insert 'and'.

No. 71, in page 20, line 19, leave out from 'section;' to end of line 22.

No. 72, in page 20, leave out line 24.

No. 73, in page 20, line 30, at end insert—
'(9A) Any foundation established otherwise than under this Act which has no property other than the premises of any school or schools falling within subsection (8)(a) shall be a charity which (subject to section 3(5A) of the Charities Act 1993) is not required to be registered for the purposes of that Act (but is not an exempt charity for the purposes of that Act).
For this purpose "premises" includes a teacher's dwelling-house.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 23

SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEES

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in page 22, line 9, at end insert—
'(d) a person nominated by other appropriate religious and local community groups.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 141, in clause 25, page 22, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 23.
No. 162, in page 23, line 9, at end insert—
'(bb) requiring that agreement of the draft plan by the school organisation committee in respect of denominational school provision shall be by unanimity.'.
No. 163, in page 23, line 30, at end insert—
'(h) requiring the school organisation committee to consult with potential promoters of new schools in the formulation of the draft plan.'.
No. 142, in page 23, line 31, leave out 'in Wales'.
No. 143, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'in Wales'.

Mr. Dafis: The amendments that I have tabled in this group—Nos. 161 and 163—should be considered with amendment No. 164 and that group of amendments. I shall therefore deal only briefly with my two amendments—as an introduction to the main theme, to which I shall return in our debate on that later group of amendments.
I have tabled my amendments at the request of an organisation called the Third Sector Schools Alliance. I have absolutely no constituency interest in the issue, as I have no schools in my own constituency of the type dealt with in the amendments.
I was approached about the matter specifically because I tabled an amendment in Committee on the Education Bill in 1993, which would have enabled schools with alternative curriculums—such as Steiner and Montessori schools—to enter the state sector. In Committee, the then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr.

Murphy)—now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—said that Labour, if elected to government, would support the principle of state funding for that type of school. I hope that Labour in power will maintain that position. A strong case can be made for providing those schools with state funding.
Amendment No. 161 would amend clause 23 by adding to the list of categories from which the regulations require that people are appointed to school organisation committees. The amendment would therefore add
a person nominated by other appropriate religious and local community groups
to the categories of local education authority members and representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Who in a pluralist society could quarrel with the principle of including persons from other religions and groups in school organisation committees? It is perfectly appropriate, and is at the heart of the amendment.
Amendment No. 163 would amend clause 25—which deals with school organisation plans—and require consultation
with potential promoters of new schools in the formulation of the draft plan.
The amendment would amount to extending the consultation process, to enable people with proposals for new schools to be consulted in the formulation of a draft plan.
I shall leave my comments on the matter there for now.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall address all my remarks to amendment No. 162, which I tabled, and which I shall, at the appropriate place—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—seek to press to a Division.
The basis of the amendment is the underlying presumption that, unless something is written in the Bill, it carries virtually no meaningful weight. Undertakings may be given behind the scenes; Churches may be reassured; bland words may be exchanged; very earnest sentiments may be uttered; and intentions may even be perfectly honourable—but the fact remains that, unless something is written in the Bill, nothing whatever will give it binding force. Circumstances change; financial and other constraints appear; Ministers come and go; and, occasionally, even Governments come and go.
There can be no reliance whatever on undertakings given in private, or even on notes in Committee, which do not carry statutory force. They can convey nothing other than a Minister's immediate intention in immediate circumstances.
In the extensive negotiations on the Bill that the Government have apparently been having with Churches, Churches may not have had the wool pulled over their eyes, but they have been much too easily satisfied with undertakings given that do not have the force of statute to back them up. Therefore, I am doing the job that I would rather the Churches themselves had done, and am trying to ensure that the Bill includes some powers for Churches, to safeguard their own specific interests.
6.15 pm
I have already expressed the Church's broad position. I have had consultations at the highest level—perhaps not the highest level, because I have not been to Rome about


it, but the highest level in this country. From those consultations, I understand that the Church's position is that it supports lowering class sizes, if that is possible. It certainly supports the principle that class sizes should be limited if possible. However, that should not happen at the expense of denying a child—I speak specifically to the Roman Catholic issue—a Roman Catholic education. I am sure that the Church of England would also say that, although it might want to limit class sizes, if parents want their children to have a Church of England education, the 31st child should not find himself or herself denied that opportunity and forced instead to take a secular education.
When I explained the position to Church representatives, first they said, "The Government have promised us that we shall have more denominational places." I have not heard that promise reiterated, but I should be quite interested to hear whether Ministers have made such a promise, or whether perhaps there was a misinterpretation. If Ministers have made such a promise, how will they honour it, and in what circumstances?
If, for example, children are denied admission to the nearest Roman Catholic or Church of England school because class sizes are too big, will other denominational places immediately be created—which would require considerable Government investment? Or will secular schools first have to be filled with surplus students, who will thereby be denied denominational education? Perhaps only after that has been achieved and there are no surplus secular places, a few more denominational places will be included in the creation of more places. Which of those two routes will Ministers go down, to honour what Churches think is a commitment to provide more denominational places?
Church representatives also said to me, "It is all right, because even if all that starts to go wrong and we do not get the new denominational places, Churches have a veto." My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Minister, "What is that veto?" He had never heard of it; there was no veto.
I did a bit of exploration to discover how that misunderstanding could have arisen. It seems to have arisen because there will be representatives of Churches on school organisation committees. In Committee, it was said that there would be a drive for unanimity, and that, if there was not unanimity, the plan would have to go to the adjudicator. From that, Churches deduced that they effectively had a veto. They could always prevent unanimity on a plan that they did not like, and the matter would end up with the adjudicator.
Anyone can see that there is no provision for a veto in the Bill. The drive for unanimity depends only on a note in Committee and has absolutely no statutory force. Therefore, if a committee were not unanimous but had a clear majority, nothing in law or in statute would stop the committee enforcing its view over, above and contrary to the wishes of its denominational representatives.
I am seeking to give statutory force to the undertaking that was apparently given in Committee, but to limit it to denominational schools, because I am very exercised by the consideration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) raised in Committee. He said that, if one always insisted on unanimity throughout the system, every case would end up before the adjudicator. Therefore, I have sought to limit to

denominational schools the undertaking that the Churches believe that they have been given—I believe that they are mistaken, but I hope that it was not done deliberately—that they will be able to exercise some sort of veto.
The amendment would mean that in a denominational school, it would not be possible to put through a draft plan—this could cover class sizes and the organisation of class sizes to meet any size limitation—without it going to the adjudicator if there were objections from the denominational representatives on the school organisation committee, unless the plan were already unanimously accepted. I do not think that even that is a wonderful solution, but regard it very much as second best. I hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, the original amendment, tabled by Conservative Members, simply to grant flexibility to denominational schools, will again be debated, perhaps with a happier outcome.
I make no apology for saying that I regard the amendment as a third or fourth best option from among the various ones already tried by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. However, it at least tests the Government to some extent. In their negotiations with the Churches, the Government promised more denominational places—they have allegedly promised this; I do not know, as I was not there—and a veto. The amendment tests whether they are going to come up with the second, and I hope that the Minister will deal with the first.

Mr. Willis: I am always interested in what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has to say, but I think she has done herself an injustice by tabling amendment No. 162. She rightly says that it is the third or fourth best option. The amendments tabled in Committee were superior in terms of their overall effect.
I have much sympathy with the need to protect admissions to Church schools—I have some very fine Church schools in my constituency—but the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is basically saying that parents who opt for a denominational school should have their choice guaranteed. That is the effect of what she proposes.

Miss Widdecombe: That is not quite the effect. At the moment, if a school is heavily over-subscribed, the head can turn away a child of the relevant denomination, although he will bend over backwards not to do so. However, under the new proposals, the exact opposite will be the case. Even where a head and a governing body believe that they have the flexibility to accommodate extra children, they will not be allowed to do so. The amendment does not give a guarantee; I wish it did.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for that clarification, but if the plan had to be agreed by the school organisation committee and the members representing denominational schools, because they had the veto, and if they insisted that there were sufficient places in Church schools to meet the demand, they would in effect be guaranteeing places to parents who wished to send their children to denominational schools. It is not worth having a long debate on the matter, but the issue has been highlighted.
I want to speak particularly to amendments Nos. 141 to 143. I am conscious of the time and the fact that we have much business to get through, so I shall be relatively brief.
We have somewhat reluctantly agreed that the school organisation committee will have a reasonable function. The Government have made a case for it, and we support the idea of greater co-operation between various groups of people in drawing up the organisational plan. There is a great deal of sense in that, but we do not accept that there should be yet another layer of bureaucracy involving the adjudicator.
If the Secretary of State does not trust local education authorities sufficiently to give them control over the plans, he should say so. He should say that there is not to be an adjudicator, but that, if the plan cannot be agreed by the school organisation committee and the local education authority, he himself will decide. In effect, the adjudicator will be the Secretary of State's placeman, and represents an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Indeed, every attempt should be made to get the school organisation committee and local education authority to agree. Conflict between the two does not bode well for the harmonious running of an authority or for satisfaction for parents. Conflict makes it less likely that parents will be satisfied with the number and quality of places and where they are.
We shall not press our amendments to the vote, but we should like an assurance from the Minister that she will reconsider the issue of the adjudicator and allow local education authorities to decide on the plans once they have been submitted to them by the school organisation committee.

Mr. Dorrell: I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. Her preference would be to solve the problem of the individual child from a denominational family by making the class size pledge more flexible. I entirely agree with her. Indeed, we tabled several amendments to that end in Committee and earlier on Report.
I also share my right hon. Friend's hope that, when the Bill reaches another place, a means will be found to introduce precisely the principle to which she referred. Should the other place choose to do that, we shall certainly sustain the principle when the Bill returns here. Given that that principle does not appear in the Bill, I support amendment No. 162. Should the Government not accept it, the official Opposition will support my right hon. Friend in pressing it to a vote when we reach the appropriate point.
Amendment No. 162 would establish that the denominational interest cannot be overruled in the school organisation committee. As my right hon. Friend stressed, to rely on an informal piece of advice that was circulated in Committee, and which was rather vaguely worded anyway, is no reassurance at all. It certainly does not constitute an enforceable veto, even it that is what was meant. My right hon. Friend is attempting to include that principle in the Bill, and she is right to do so.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) left me unclear whether it is still the Liberal Democrats' view that school organisation matters should rest with the local education authority, which I thought was the position that they adopted in Committee, or whether they are now saying that, whenever there is a

contest in the school organisation committee, the matter should be referred not to the adjudicator, as the Bill provides, but to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Willis: We believe that the local education authority should make the final decision in consultation with the school organisation committee. My point was to ask: if there is to be another authority in the form of an adjudicator, who is to be appointed effectively by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State might as well do the job himself. Why have yet another layer of bureaucracy?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the position. He continues to adopt the view that decisions are best made by the local education authority. I set out in Committee why we disagree with that proposition. I continue to believe that schools should be seen not as part of an integrated system, but as a series of local institutions responsible to the local community and accountable to parents. The principal responsibility rests with the governing body and the teachers at the school.
The difference between Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats was ventilated a number of times in Committee, and will come up again later—Liberal Democrats believe that the Government are insufficiently committed to the future of local education authorities to the extent that they are edging away from them, but we encourage the Government to go down that path, because we want a more varied, plural system of school provision that gives professionals working within the system a greater opportunity to develop new ideas and approaches to the delivery of high-quality, schools-based education. Plurality and variety would give parents real choice: I emphasise that key difference between Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition.
We support amendment No. 162, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, for the reasons that I have given.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): There was agreement in Committee that the move to making decisions at the local level would be widely welcomed. Decisions are currently taken centrally in the name of the Secretary of State, except where local authorities publish unopposed plans. I should emphasise that our premise was that the existing system is not ideal, because that has not been apparent from the comments of Opposition Members.
The move to local decision making is crucial. We must maintain and treasure the important partnerships between providers of education, such as local authorities and the Churches. Such bodies must work together to provide sufficient places for children to ensure a cohesive pattern of education. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who said that those bodies are separate institutions with no relationship to each other. They have a relationship, because they serve the same community and sometimes members of the same family.
School organisation committees will ensure that that pattern can continue to serve the interests of children and their families. I said in Committee and say again that local


authorities have played an important part in the provision of schools and education, as have the Churches over many centuries. We want that to continue, which is why the Bill will enshrine the representation of local authorities and Church of England and Roman Catholic Church diocese on school organisation committees. Hon. Members will welcome the recognition of the important role that those organisations play.
Amendment No. 161, which was moved by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), is inappropriate. Some groups may be established in certain local authority areas, but not in others. We shall consult on the make-up of school organisation committees and publish regulations accordingly. The special place of the Church and local authorities is recognised in the Bill, but the issue of which other groups might be represented on the committees is best left to regulation.
Amendment No. 161 refers to
appropriate religious and local community groups".
Who would decide which groups were appropriate, and who would choose which community groups should be represented? Who would approach such groups and decide how they would be represented? I am not persuaded that groups that do not provide education should have a role on school organisation committees. I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for Ceredigion moved the amendment on behalf of the Third Sector Schools Alliance, and I know of its work, but the amendment is inappropriate.
School organisation plans will be important facts-and-figures documents that describe the historical background of the provision of schools and places in local authority areas. They will provide the background against which decisions on individual schools will be made by school organisation committees. I remind hon. Members that the documents will not contain proposals for the future of individual schools, but will give a context for the proposals.
Amendment No. 163, which also stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, requires
the school organisation committee to consult with potential promoters of new schools
and is inappropriate. It will not be for a school organisation committee to consult; it must put facts and figures about the supply of places in its area in a school organisation plan, and therefore into the public domain. Promoters of new schools, whoever and wherever they may be, will be able to study it, object to it and make proposals.
The documents will not be secret; there will be consultation on them and they will be published locally. Decisions about how new schools should be set up will be taken locally.

Mrs. May: Will the Minister clarify her references to decisions being taken locally? I understand that school organisation committees would consider such decisions, but would they be referred to an adjudicator in certain circumstances—for example, when challenged? Did not she make it clear in Committee that adjudicators would not be local people, but would be brought in from outside?

Ms Morris: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that a decision would be taken by an adjudicator if a

school organisation committee could not agree unanimously. An adjudicator with local knowledge, who works locally and visits an area—rather than someone who sits in Westminster—would take account of local considerations far more than does the current process.
We debated the matter long and hard in Committee. Our proposals for school organisation committees and adjudicators will ensure that decisions are made locally. The hon. Lady knows that it is not always possible to ensure that adjudicators are locals, but we shall consider regional balance when we appoint them. Her opening premise was right: decisions will go to an adjudicator when there is not unanimity.
The issue of unanimity brings me nicely to amendment No. 162, tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I hesitate to say this, and do not mean to be disparaging, but she claims to speak for the Churches because she does not think that they can speak for themselves. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has had many lengthy discussions with the Churches and the Bill is better for that. Our early drafts have been changed because of the representations that were made by many groups, such as the Churches.
To imply that we have sought to pull the wool over the eyes of the Churches during many months of discussion is to discredit not only my hon. Friend, but the Churches. They are happy with the assurances on unanimity that we have given them.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: I shall give way in a moment.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is correct about the Churches, but we differ over whether her proposal should be included in the Bill. We have given assurances in Committee, and now on the Floor of the House, that school organisation committee decisions must be unanimous and will go to an adjudicator if they are not. Whether she believes them is a matter of trust—indeed, a matter of faith.
The right hon. Lady is a former Minister in a leading Department. She knows that primary legislation does not deal with every issue; we are not the first ministerial team to say that some issues are more appropriately dealt with by regulations. The matter will not rest on what has been distributed on a piece of paper—regulations with statutory force will provide for the need for unanimity.

Miss Widdecombe: The Minister said that assurances had been given in Committee and were now being repeated on the Floor of the House. As I have said, I was not present at the time, but the Churches believe they have been assured that, rather than a child's being denied a denominational place, extra denominational places will be provided. Has that assurance indeed been given?

Ms Morris: The right hon. Lady should not go over debates that have taken place in the past. We are well past the clauses that deal with class sizes. The right hon. Lady should have been present at the first sitting of the


Committee if she wanted to debate issues of class size and denomination. She could then have supported her right hon. and hon. Friends.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Ms Morris: I shall not give way again on this point. Class sizes are a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and he answered questions on that subject fully on Second Reading and in Committee. He has dealt fully with amendments tabled by the right hon. Lady and her colleagues. I suggest that the right hon. Lady read the reports inHansard.
The measures proposed in the amendments will be contained in regulations. They will not rest on a whim based on something written on a piece of paper—and, as the right hon. Lady has already admitted, the Churches are well satisfied with the assurances that they have been given.
We have no intention of pulling the wool over the eyes of the Churches or anyone else. We do not wish to do that and we have no interest in doing it. We value the education that the Churches provide, and have provided for centuries, and we want to retain it in the future.

Mr. Dorrell: The Minister insists that she agrees with the principle in amendment No. 162. Why, then, will she not write it into the Bill?

Ms Morris: As I have already made clear, some measures are better left to regulations. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is that the right hon. Lady does not believe us. At least the right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he believes us, although he would prefer the provision to be contained in primary legislation.

Mr. Dorrell: Why should it be in secondary legislation?

Ms Morris: We are advised by those who help us to draft legislation that the matter is appropriate for regulations.
Ultimately, what matters to the Churches—and what will matter to parents and children—is the honouring of a pledge; the pledge will be honoured. People can cite in court and elsewhere what is said by Ministers on the Floor of the House and in Committee: that has been proved. The pledge has been given, and it will be implemented in regulations. There is no need for it to be in the Bill as well. Those who speak officially on behalf of the Churches are happy with the assurances that have been given; I am sorry that the right hon. Members for Charnwood and for Maidstone and the Weald are not happy with them as well.
As for the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I, too, was a little confused about whether they had moved substantially from what they said in Committee, but, following interventions from the right hon. Member for Charnwood, I think that we simply disagree on the issue. I think we agree that decisions are

better taken locally and that—although hon. Members may not approve of the way in which the school organisation committees will be composed—there is grudging acceptance of the fact that they will do a good job, will protect interests and will try to secure unanimity, which is always right. The difference in opinion concerns whether the committees should be able to advise local education authorities or whether authorities should appeal to adjudicators or to the Secretary of State.
We dealt with the arguments in Committee. We want to take the centralised decision-making power away from Westminster and Whitehall and move it to the localities involved. As I told the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald earlier, the committee members will be in the locality. They will be able to weigh up arguments locally and perhaps look at patterns of decision making around the country. If the school organisation committee that we have established cannot agree, the appeal mechanism should also be as locally based as possible. We see that as a natural next step. Requiring unanimity in SOCs and recourse to the Secretary of State as the very next step surely flies in the face of our attempt to localise decision making.

Mr.Willis: We do not want the Secretary of State to interfere; we want decisions to be made by local education authorities after they have consulted SOCs. We think that decisions should be made locally by those who go to the ballot box every year—or every four years—to obtain the consent of the people.

Ms Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. As he knows, local authorities will play a key role on SOCs, but they are not the only education providers in the locality. We are establishing a local decision-making process that will bring the partners together and aim for unanimity but enable the adjudicator to make a decision if unanimity is not possible.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: I will, for the last time.

Mr. Foster: Is a democrat, does the Minister consider it more appropriate for decisions to be made by an individual appointed by the Secretary of State who has no democratic accountability to local people or by a group of people who have been elected by the local community?

Ms Morris: The adjudicator will not make decisions in isolation. The Secretary of State, a democratically accountable individual, will issue guidance and regulations according to which adjudicators should make their decisions. Under the current system, more than 300 cases have been decided in Whitehall, in the name of the Secretary of State. It makes sense for such decisions to be made locally, but the democratic accountability exists because the guidance that the adjudicator will use will have been issued by the Secretary of State.
We have discussed these matters in Committee and now on the Floor of the House. Clause 25 is a move towards local decision making; we have established a mechanism to ensure that decisions are made locally and that the interests of local education authorities, Churches


and parents are protected. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will see fit to withdraw amendment No. 161, but if he does not, I shall ask the House to vote against it and to resist those with which it is grouped.

Mr. Dafis: I shall ask leave to withdraw my amendment, but I noted what the Minister said about the appropriateness of including the proposals in regulations. I merely wish to emphasise the importance of proper consultation with interested parties before the regulations are drawn up.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has my party's support and I am sure that the Minister acknowledges the importance of talking to a wide range of bodies—especially those in the Third Sector Schools Alliance.

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I await the Minister's response to the next group of amendments but one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before the hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment, perhaps we can hear from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I believe that she wants to press her amendment to a vote.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having heard such an inadequate response, I feel that I must press amendment No. 162 to a Division.
I am always suspicious when a Minister who has been asked a clear question refers the questioner to statements made by colleagues. A simple yes would prevent a great deal of anxiety. In this instance, the yes was not forthcoming, and I remain fairly suspicious.
I know that many provisions must be dealt with in regulations. I might have swallowed that argument but for the sheer prescriptive detail of clause 97. I wonder why one simple reassuring extra detail cannot be included, and why it is so important not to give that detail statutory force.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the right hon. Lady is referring to amendment No. 162. At the appropriate time, she can move it formally for the purposes of a vote. Does the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) wish to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Dafis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24

ADJUDICATORS

Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 22, line 21, at end insert—
'(1A) Any vacancy for a post of adjudicator shall be advertised publicly;
(1B) Any advertisement issued under the terms of subsection (1A) of this section shall set out the qualifications sought in successful candidates for appointment as adjudicators and shall state the process by which decisions will be made about which applicants are appointed as adjudicators.'.

The amendment seeks to throw open what will otherwise be the almost completely closed world of the adjudicator. The Bill attributes huge power to adjudicators in the schools system; the amendment would increase their accountability.
The amendment is relevant to the previous debate on the role of the school organisation committee in designing an area's schools system. The Bill states that whenever the school organisation committee cannot reach agreement—assuming that the Government's assurances on the unanimity principle are given effect—the decision would fall, in the circumstances envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), to the adjudicator.
Similarly, terms elsewhere in the Bill provide that adjudicators will decide when there are local disputes about arrangements for admission to schools. Those are huge issues that impact directly on the choices parents make about which school their children will attend. They impact on the performance and development of popular and unpopular schools. They impact directly on the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can have less background noise in the Chamber.

Mr. Dorrell: I was referring to new clause 13, which sought to give effect to the pledge made by the Minister for School Standards on the day before the countryside march: no rural school would close without a specific decision of the Secretary of State. It became clear in the debate on new clause 13 that the Minister's words meant nothing, because beyond September 1999—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to go over past business. We are debating amendment No. 89.

Mr. Dorrell: Both the new clause and the amendment are relevant to the adjudicator being accorded power. The amendment would increase public accountability of the person who will make the decision that the Minister said on television would be made by the Secretary of State. The Minister made it clear at the Dispatch Box this afternoon that, beyond September 1999, when the principle of unanimity, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, on the school organisation committee, which the Government accepted, leads to the decision not being made locally, the decision will be made by a public official—the adjudicator. The adjudicator will make decisions about the structure of school provision in an area when local forces cannot agree.
I agree with the Under-Secretary that it is better that local people agree, but when they cannot, who will decide whether a Catholic school expands or contracts? Who will decide whether a Church of England school expands or contracts? Who will decide whether a rural school closes? The answer to every question is, the adjudicator.
Then we come to the question: who are these adjudicators? To whom will my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald look when her unanimity principle is observed and local people cannot decide? Who will deal with the question that the public


believe—the Minister for School Standards has assured them—will be made by the Secretary of State? Who will make such a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State and of the public?
When we raised these issues in Committee, the Under-Secretary gave what can only be described, charitably, as a rather incomplete answer. She suggested that adjudicators would be part time; possibly, she suggested helpfully—at least to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—they would be retired head teachers. We were led to believe that the Government would be going on patrol, looking for retired head teachers who wanted to spend two days a week making decisions on which rural schools should close, and the availability of denominational education on behalf of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the interest groups about which is concerned—against the background of an assurance that the Secretary of State would make such decisions.
The same story runs through the Government. One of the first announcements after the general election was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no longer decide monetary policy and would pass such decisions to Eddie George. Now we hear that key decisions on provision of the schools system will no longer be made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. They are to be passed to faceless people called adjudicators.
Under the amendment, there would at the very least be a public, open and accountable appointments system for public officials who will be making sensitive local decisions. We would be able to see who makes decisions that the public think will be made by the Secretary of State. The amendment would require any vacancy for such a powerful post to be advertised, so that we can see what type of official the Government envisage appointing to discharge such important functions. We should be able to see the Government's job description for an adjudicator. There is certainly no hint of that in the Bill. The Bill merely describes in broad terms the powers of the adjudicator; it tells us virtually nothing about the way in which the adjudicator is supposed to work.
In opposition, Labour Members made huge play of the need for open government. The amendment would ensure that the Government have to advertise adjudicator vacancies and state what qualifications they require. They would have to state how people will be appointed, to whom they will be accountable, how they will be called to account if a series of decisions lead to criticism of an adjudicator's role, and how, ultimately, they will be fired if they make decisions for which there is no basis of public support. The Bill answers none of those questions.
The Government are taking away powers to make key decisions on a locality's schools system from the Secretary of State, who is accountable to the House, and from junior Ministers, who respond to local concerns expressed by hon. Members, and according them to an appointed official. The amendment would begin a path to open up what will otherwise be a completely closed system.

Ms Estelle Morris: That was the most amazing eight minutes of hot air that I have heard in Committee or on

Report. The answers are simple. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) has received in writing the assurances for which he has just asked. He asked for the vacancy of the post of adjudicator to be advertised publicly. In a letter of 18 February, I wrote to him saying:
We shall advertise the posts widely".
What more does he want?

Mr. Dorrell: I want it to be in the Bill.

Ms Morris: Ah, it is different now; it is not that he does not know what it entails, but that it should be in the Bill. The argument changes as the minutes go by. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a big issue of something on which he knows he has received assurances. Proposed subsections (1A) and (1B) describe proper procedures when appointing a person to fulfil the role of adjudicator. I again give the right hon. Gentleman the assurances that I gave him in Committee—at column 380 of the 11th sitting—and that I wrote to him about on 18 February. Both the things he asks for in the amendment have already been given.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are a bit rich, given that the Conservatives set up next steps agencies and appointed bodies that took responsibility from Ministers? I could probably give him a thick sheaf of replies to parliamentary questions in which he said that he was not responsible for a particular issue because it was the responsibility of a next steps agency. His argument smacks of hypocrisy.

7 pm

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. Gentleman is a late convert to accountability.
The amendment should be withdrawn. I do not disagree with anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he has already had the assurances that he seeks. I am prepared to give them again on the Floor of the House. The posts will be advertised, and the advertisements will make it clear that the successful candidates will have to have a range of qualities that we shall decide on when we draw up the advertisements. We have wasted 10 minutes that could have been better spent. There are other issues on which we disagree, but we agree on this.

Mr. Dorrell: rose—

Ms Morris: No, I shall not give way again.
We disagree only on whether the provision should be included in the Bill. I have given the right hon. Gentleman verbal and written assurances. There is no need to press the amendment. If he does so, I urge hon. Members to vote against it.

Mr. Dorrell: I had not intended to push the amendment to a vote, not because the issue is unimportant but because I want to get on to other issues, but not only did the Minister not answer my questions: she resisted my attempt to intervene to remind her of them. The Bill accords substantial powers to the new adjudicators. The Minister has given us an assurance that the posts will be


advertised; she has not told us to whom the adjudicators will be responsible or what checks and balances there will be on their work.
I do not intend to push my amendment to a vote, but I give notice that I expect my noble Friends in another place to return to this important issue of accountability. If the school system is to be accountable to local people, it must be clear who makes the decisions, how those people are appointed and how they are held to account. The Minister did not explain that. We shall continue in another place to pursue the accountability of adjudicators. Against that background, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 162, in page 23, line 9, at end insert—
'(bb) requiring that agreement of the draft plan by the school organisation committee in respect of denominational school provision shall be by unanimity.'—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 308.

Division No. 222]
[7.3 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Grieve, Dominic


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hague, Rt Hon William


Arbuthnot, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Nick


Bercow, John
Heald, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Hunter, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Brady, Graham
Johnson Smith,


Brazier, Julian
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burns, Simon
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Butterfill, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lansley, Andrew


(Chipping Barnet)
Leigh, Edward


Chope, Christopher
Letwin, Oliver


Clappison, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lidington, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


(Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Loughton, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Luff, Peter


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Curry, Rt Hon David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacKay, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maples, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mates, Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Evans, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Flight, Howard
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Dr Liam
Nicholls, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gill, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Page, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paice, James


Gray, James
Paterson, Owen


Green, Damian
Pickles, Eric


Greenway, John
Prior, David





Randall, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townend, John


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tredinnick, David


Ruffley, David
Tyrie, Andrew


St Aubyn, Nick
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wardle, Charles


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Waterson, Nigel


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Streeter, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swayne, Desmond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Syms, Robert
Sir David Madel and Mr. James Cran.


Tapsell, Sir Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Colman, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Connarty, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allan, Richard
Corbett, Robin


Allen, Graham
Corston, Ms Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cox, Tom


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Crausby, David


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Baker, Norman
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Battle, John
Dafis, Cynog


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Benton, Joe
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Berry, Roger
Davidson, Ian


Best, Harold
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton


Blackman, Liz
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blears, Ms Hazel
Denham, John


Blizzard, Bob
Dobbin, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Donohoe, Brian H


Borrow, David
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Drown, Ms Julia


Brake, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brand, Dr Peter
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ennis, Jeff


Buck, Ms Karen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Burnett, John
Flint, Caroline


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cann, Jamie
Fyfe, Maria


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Chaytor, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clapham, Michael
Godman, Norman A


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grant, Bernie


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Ann
Grogan, John


Coaker, Vernon
Gunnell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hain, Peter


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)






Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hanson, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Harris, Dr Evan
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Milburn, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Hoey, Kate
Mountford, Kali


Home Robertson, John
Mudie, George


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howells, Dr Kim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoyle, Lindsay
Oaten, Mark


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Olner, Bill


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Neill, Martin


Hurst, Alan
Öpik, Lembit


Hutton, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pendry, Tom


Jamieson, David
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pike, Peter L


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pope, Greg


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Ms Jenny
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally

Radice, Giles


Kemp, Fraser
Rammell, Bill


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rendel, David


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rogers, Allan



Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Livsey, Richard
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Sanders, Adrian


McAvoy, Thomas

Sarwar, Mohammad


McCabe, Steve
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Shaw, Jonathan



Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


McDonnell, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McIsaac, Shona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mactaggart, Fiona
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Soley, Clive
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Spellar, John
Vaz, Keith


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wallace, James


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Walley, Ms Joan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Stevenson, George
Watts, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Webb, Steve


Stoate, Dr Howard
White, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wicks, Malcolm


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stunell, Andrew
(Swansea W)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


(Dewsbury)
Willis, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wills, Michael


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, James


Todd, Mark
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Touhig, Don
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Trickett, Jon



Truswell, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 27

PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OR ALTERATION OF COMMUNITY, FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 164, in page 24, line 35, leave out 'contain such information' and insert
'be required to seek approval against the following criteria;
(i) open to all irrespective of colour, creed, intellectual ability, social class or economic status;
(ii) offering a broad and balanced curriculum;
(iii) agreement to inspection and/or submission to SATs or other relevant evaluation procedures;
(iv) equal opportunities for girls and boys;
(v) no corporal punishment;
(vi) establishment of a mission statement of the ethos, beliefs, values and admissions basis of the school;
(vii) minimum requirement for the number of teachers with QTS and a qualified head;
(viii) premises or potential premises that comply with health and safety standards;
(ix) a minimum number of children and statements of intent from parents.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 166, in schedule 6, page 114, line 12, at end insert—
'(8) In the event of the proposals being rejected by the relevant committee, the governing body or promoters may appeal to the adjudicator for the decision to be reviewed, who may—
(a) reject the proposals;
(b) approve them without modification; or
(c) approve them with such modifications as he thinks desirable after consulting such persons or bodies as may be prescribed.


(9) In the event of the proposals being rejected by the relevant committee, the governing body or promoters may appeal to the Secretary of State for the decision to be reviewed, who may—
(a) reject the proposals;
(b) approve them without modification; or
(c) approve them with such modifications as he thinks desirable after consulting such persons or bodies as may be prescribed.'.
No. 167, in schedule 7, page 123, line 36, after 'insufficient', insert
'in the number and character of schools necessary to meet the needs of the area.'.
No. 168, in page 123, line 44, at end insert—
'(c) consult potential promoters of new schools, inviting them to make a proposal to establish a new foundation or voluntary school'.
No. 169, in page 123, line 46, after 'pupils', insert
'and for the requirement for schools of different character'.

Mr. Dafis: I now come to the substance of the argument that I mentioned briefly when we were discussing amendments Nos. 161 and 163. I reiterate that it was established in 1993 that the Labour party would look positively and sympathetically on the idea—indeed, would agree to the principle—that schools with alternative curricula might be accepted into the state sector as an alternative means of delivering a valid pattern of education.
There is a strong case for the provisions in the amendments. I am also bearing in mind the fact that the inclusion in the Education Act 1994 of the principle that parents should have a degree of choice over the type of education that their children received not only enabled some Church of England, Methodist, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools to obtain state funding but allowed the growth of Welsh-medium schools in primarily English-speaking parts of Wales.
Those schools started very small, but they are now making an outstanding contribution to education in Wales and have laid the basis for the revival of the Welsh language. One of the Government's education advisers, Professor David Reynolds, described those schools as the jewel in the crown of Welsh education. They were started through the kind of provision that I am arguing should be applied also to other categories of school.
The Third Sector Schools Alliance wishes that privilege to be extended to a wider range of schools so that they can be allowed to enter the state sector, probably as voluntary aided or community schools. It wishes to present its case to the Minister, and I hope that she and her colleagues will agree to meet its representatives. The principle is important; I know that many hon. Members, including Labour Members, are keen for the Government to allow such a meeting to occur, and that some of them would like to participate in it.
The schools that I am talking about find it difficult—in some cases, impossible—to enter the state sector. Some are Christian schools, some Muslim and some Buddhist, while some, such as the Steiner-Waldorf schools and the small schools of the Human Scale Education Movement, could be described as having a philosophical foundation. The amendments would facilitate such schools' entry into the state system.
It is accepted that schools should meet a set of criteria to obtain state funding, and proposals for some of the criteria are set out in the amendment. The amendment would amend clause 27, which deals with the establishment of new schools—community, foundation or voluntary. I wish to draw attention to some of the criteria. For example, schools entering the state system should be
open to all irrespective of colour, creed, intellectual ability, social class or economic status.
We are not talking about schools that are closed to a particular category of pupil.
Under the amendment, such schools would have to establish a mission statement of their ethos, beliefs, values and admission basis so that parents knew what they were buying for their children. They would have to offer a broad and balanced curriculum, agree to inspection and submit to standard assessment tests. They would have to meet a minimum requirement for the number of teachers with qualified teacher status. We are not talking about schools that wish to escape from the rigorous expectations that one would have for schools receiving public funding.
The Third Sector Schools Alliance says that we might accept other stringent conditions before a school was accepted: the group proposing to enter the state system must first have started a school; the school would receive state funding only after the first or second year, and on a three-year trial basis; the funding would be for revenue and not capital costs. Some may fear that the system will be inundated with applications for additional schools in the state sector, but there is no danger of that. Only schools that met the criteria in terms of provision, framework and conditions of entry could apply.
The alliance wants applications to be judged with consistency, transparency and fairness, and feels strongly that that is not the case at present, finding that there is no consistency, and often no transparency, in relation to the reasons offered for rejection. It wants the ground rules for decisions on applications to be well understood.
Amendment No. 166 proposes an appeals process for cases where there is disagreement on the outcome of considered proposals, which is reasonable. Amendments Nos. 167, 168 and 169 would broaden the definition of insufficiency of provision, which, as it stands, refers to numbers. The alliance wants the definition to include variety of provision.
There is a powerful case for the Government to accept the amendments. First, the principle that different value systems should be expressed in educational provision was established in the Education Act 1944, which enabled denominational schools to be accepted into the state system. There can be no justification for refusing the same privilege to other faiths.
Secondly, few would challenge the idea that diversity of approach and innovation within a rigorous framework are valuable and that we have much to learn from, for example, the Steiner-Waldorf tradition. How can we justify forcing such schools to remain in the private sector when they want to be part of the maintained system? What justification can we give to those pupils who wish to receive that provision—which we recognise as valuable and which could make an important contribution—for obliging them to go to the private sector?
The amendments do not challenge the idea of a national curriculum: they allow departures from it within a proven alternative. Flexibility was the reason for the inclusion of


sections 16 and 17 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which established the national curriculum. Those sections were drafted to allow the national curriculum not to apply in certain circumstances, or to apply with modification. The provisions had strong cross-party support at the time, and prestigious people argued that it was important to provide space for innovation and alternative approaches.
Numerous countries provide state funding for new community schools, and the United Kingdom is unusual in not making such provision. Denmark provides 85 per cent. of the running costs for such schools, and Holland 100 per cent. Similar arrangements exist in Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Germany. The principle is well established, and the principle of choice in these matters is enshrined in decisions at UN level and in the European Parliament.
I emphasise that the schools that we are discussing are not elitist and do not select on the grounds of ability. I hope that the Government regard that as a recommendation. Many have a good track record in providing for disadvantaged pupils and underprivileged localities. I can think of one such school which makes wonderful provision for children with learning difficulties. Such schools can make an important contribution.
I do not expect the Government to accept the amendments, but I hope and trust that they are receptive to the principles behind them and that Ministers will wish to conduct a serious dialogue with the interested parties. I hope that Ministers will agree to meet the Third Sector Schools Alliance, which has fought this issue thoroughly.
Earlier, the Minister spoke about the long discussions with the Churches and emphasised the value of the dialogue. We live in a more pluralistic society than that which generated the 1944 Act, with its provisions for denominational schools. Other religious organisations should be given their chance, and other providers working on a coherent philosophical basis need to be included. It would be wrong to exclude such schools when so much emphasis has been placed tonight on dialogue with the denominational sector.

Ms Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for his contribution. As a former teacher, I have often felt that we can learn much from schools outside the mainstream framework. I do not want any of my comments to be construed as disrespectful to the schools to which he has referred, which do a good job, often with children who have found it less appropriate to learn in other situations.
The hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment on behalf of the Third Sector Schools Alliance, and I understand something about what that group represents. I hope that he will accept that it is not appropriate to set out in primary legislation such detailed information as appears in the amendment, but I assure him that we shall publish guidance for school organisation committees and adjudicators on what they must take into account in making decisions.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the need for obvious consistency, transparency and fairness when decisions are made about whether schools should enter the maintained sector. I agree that our actions should be guided by those qualities. He may not know that,

when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced that some Muslim schools would receive state funding, we issued for the first time criteria under which such decisions were to be made. We set out five criteria—if the hon. Gentleman has not had the opportunity to read them, I shall ensure that he receives a copy.
Previously, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, those criteria had not been in the public domain, although I do not suggest that previous Governments acted unfairly or inconsistently. In fact, I do not know whether they did or did not, because I did not see the criteria. When the criteria are not made public, that can give rise to suspicion, which is not a good way in which to do business.
7.30 pm
I do not want to give undue cause for hope, so I should say that existing legal requirements go beyond the criteria that the hon. Gentleman has included in the amendment. We are not yet issuing guidance to school organisation committees and adjudicators, but let me pick out three criteria from the amendment with which we would have difficulty and which I do not expect to see in the guidance.
First, we believe that all teachers should have qualified teacher status, except in rare cases—for example, graduates who are teaching as part of their training to acquire that status. Secondly, we believe that all schools should teach the national curriculum. Thirdly, religious schools will always be able to select on the basis of creed, so the first criterion in the amendment, which seems to be one that we should all applaud, would in fact cause difficulty for Church schools.
It is important that all the criteria can be defended. Parents need to know that there is a bottom line for children who are educated in a school that is maintained by the state. There will be diversity—all schools are different; they have an individual ethos and approach—but that must be in a framework of expectations for children about which parents can be sure.
I can give an assurance that the framework for decision making that we shall bring forward will state that the national curriculum should be taught, that teachers should be qualified, and that religious schools should be able to recruit children on the basis of their creed and their parents' creed. Above and beyond that, there will be for the first time—I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome this—a set of guidelines against which decisions are made, so that those who want to enter the maintained sector will at least know how they will be judged.
I suspect that some of the schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred—I cannot speak for them—will find it difficult, and will not be willing, to meet some of the criteria. That is their decision. We were able to grant funding to some Muslim schools because they met the criteria; other Muslim schools will not meet them. We are not talking about excluding one group and including another; as the hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about consistency, transparency and fairness. As he rightly predicted, we shall not accept the amendment, but I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that that fairness will exist.

Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister undertake to meet representatives of the Third Sector Schools Alliance to discuss its concerns and what she has said?

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that we meet a wide range of educators all the time. It is difficult to


know the diary commitments of my ministerial colleagues, but I should certainly respond positively to a request for a meeting. I hope that, having been given assurances about fairness, consistency and transparency, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dafis: I thank the Minister for at least agreeing to a meeting, during which I hope that she can discuss some of the issues that she has raised, which deserve further consideration.
I am disappointed by the total inflexibility that I detect on the curriculum. Despite its over-prescriptiveness, the national curriculum undoubtedly provides a useful framework for teachers, but I find it worrying that it should be used as a straitjacket, making it is impossible for schools with a valid and proven approach to education, but with an alternative curriculum, to enter the public sector. If such schools prove beyond doubt through outcome their effectiveness, and if others can recognise and learn from that success,I cannot see why such schools should not, in any circumstances, be let into the maintained sector.
The previous Government had a particular approach to prescription from the centre—that approach gave rise to the legislation behind the national curriculum in 1988—but the Labour Government should be prepared to think afresh. I hope that they will take a more—dare I say—liberal approach to education, which is essentially a liberal and liberating activity. There must surely be scope for flexibility, and I argue strongly that that door should not be closed. However, having been assured that there will be a meeting at which these matters can be carefully discussed, and that there will be a continuing dialogue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

NOTICE BY GOVERNING BODY TO DISCONTINUE FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 27, line 7, at end insert—
'(aa) by the Funding Agency for Schools;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 99 to 112.

Ms Morris: The amendments are technical. They are designed to secure proper protection for public investment in maintained schools, and will close a recently discovered loophole. I am sure that the whole House will agree that public investment in schools must be protected wherever possible—the amendments will do exactly that, so I trust that they will receive the support of the House

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 27, line 18, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

No. 100, in page 27, line 36, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

No. 101, in page 27, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.

No. 102, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—
'(11) Where—
(a) land occupied by a foundation or voluntary school is held by any trustees for the purposes of the school, and
(b) the termination of the school's occupation of that land would have the result that it was not reasonably practicable for the school to continue to be conducted at its existing site,
then if the trustees (being entitled to do so) give any notice to the governing body which purports to terminate the school's occupation of the land, any such notice shall not be effective to terminate its occupation of the land unless the requirements of subsection (12) are complied with in relation to the notice (without prejudice to any other statutory or other requirements falling to be so complied with).
(12) The requirements of this subsection are—
(a) that the period of notice must—
(i) be reasonable having regard to the length of time that would be required to discontinue the school (if the governing body chose to do so), and
(ii) in any event must not be less than two years; and
(b) that a copy of the notice must be given to the Secretary of State and the local education authority at the time when the notice is given to the governing body.
(13) Where trustees give, at the same (or substantially the same) time, notices purporting to terminate a foundation or voluntary school's occupation of two or more pieces of land held by the trustees for the purposes of the school, then for the purpose of determining whether subsection (11)(b) applies in relation to any of those pieces of land, regard may be had to the combined effect of terminating the school's occupation of both or all of them.
(14) If a question arises as to whether the termination of a school's occupation of any land would have the result mentioned in subsection (11)(b) (including a question as to whether subsection (13) applies in any particular circumstances), it shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(15) In subsections (11) and (13) "the purposes of the school" includes purposes which (whether the trust deed expressly so provides or not) include the purposes of the school.'.—[Ms Estelle Morris.]

Clause 43

MAINTAINED SCHOOLS TO HAVE BUDGET SHARES

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 34, line 10, after 'shall' insert 'accordingly'.

No. 5, in page 34, line 11, at end insert 'falling within paragraph (b)'.

No. 9, in page 34, line 11, at end insert—
'(4) In this Chapter "new school" (without more) has the meaning given by section 68(2).'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 47

MAINTAINED SCHOOLS TO HAVE DELEGATED BUDGETS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 37, line 32, leave out from '1996' to end of line 34.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 48

EFFECT OF FINANCIAL DELEGATION

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 38, line 22, at end insert
'(or, in the case of temporary governors of a new school, regulations under section (Arrangements for government of new schools)(5))'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 50

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 39, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'as' and insert
'their planned expenditure in that year'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 57 to 62, 82, 63 and 64.

Mr. Byers: The amendments will achieve two objectives. First, they will ensure that, for the first time, we will have full information about local authority expenditure on a single return. That is not the case at present, and difficulties can arise. We debated in Committee the difficulty in identifying exactly where LEAs are spending their money. We all want as much money as possible to go to schools, and the returns that we will require the authorities to make will ensure that we can do that.
Secondly, amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are technical amendments reflecting the fact that an Audit Commission Bill is currently before Parliament. They will amend the Bill to reflect the fact that, in due course, the Audit Commission Bill, rather than the Local Government Finance Act 1982, will have effect on certain parts of the legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mrs. Browning: I seek some clarification. We welcome more transparency in identifying how the education budget has been spent and apportioned by the LEA, but within some LEAs the accounting practices for certain fixed costs—mainly the salaries not so much of teachers as of the chief education officer and other staff—mean that they are almost invisible, because they are included in the rounded figure for management and administrative charges in the county as a whole.
It is often difficult to identify exactly how much of the education budget has been transferred to other internal budgets for such purposes. In the return that the LEA will make to the Government, will there be an opportunity to identify clearly where the money has gone? Until one can do that, it is difficult to identify where the LEA has top-sliced certain tranches before apportioning the schools budgets. Can we have some clarification?

Mr. Byers: The amendments will require the LEA to make returns on non-general schools budget aspects, which may well cover the specific spending areas to which the hon. Lady refers. Perhaps more important, we will have the support of the Audit Commission, working alongside the independent inspectorate Ofsted, as a result of the new inspection regime. I am sure that the Audit Commission will carefully consider the additional areas of expenditure that are all too often subsidised by schools at the expense of the education that our children receive.
The combination of the information that we will receive as a result of the amendments and the Audit Commission's new inspection role will enable us to take action when we feel that the schools system is subsidising expenditure elsewhere, not only within the local education authority but in the local authority generally.
I hope that, with those words of reassurance, the House will agree to the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 39, line 9, leave out 'financial provision' and insert 'expenditure'.

No. 58, in page 39, line 11, after 'incurred' insert
',or treated by the authority as having been incurred, by them'.

No. 59, in page 39, line 11, leave out from 'year' to and' in line 12.

No. 60, in page 39, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert—
'(c) any other resources allocated by the authority in the year to schools maintained by them during any part of the year.'.

No. 61, in page 39, line 24, leave out
'in such circumstances as may be prescribed'
and insert 'if regulations so provide'.

No. 62, in page 39, line 26, leave out 'a statement' and insert 'such a copy'.

No. 82, in page 39, line 30, at end insert
'at any time before the school opening date'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 51

CERTIFICATION OF STATEMENTS BY AUDIT COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 39, line 34, leave out
'29(1)(d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982'
and insert
'28(1)(d) of the Audit Commission Act 1998'.

No. 64, in page 39, line 39, leave out '29(1)(d)' and insert '28(1)(d)'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 68

PROVISION FOR NEW SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 51, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—
'(a) the staffing and conduct of a new school in advance of the school opening date;
(b) the determination of matters in connection with a new school in advance of that date;
(c) the taking of decisions by a temporary governing body, or (where power to do so is delegated to him) by the head teacher, as to expenditure in connection with a new school at a time when it does not have a delegated budget;'.

No. 7, in page 51, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in connection with any matters falling within that subsection, apply any provision of the Education Acts with or without modification.'.

No. 8, in page 51, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
'(2) In this section "new school" means a school or proposed school—
(a) for which there is a temporary governing body constituted under section (Arrangements for government of new schools), or
(b) for which there is no such body but for which such a body—
(i) are required to be so constituted by virtue of subsection (1) of that section, or
(ii) may be so constituted in accordance with such anticipatory arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (5)(a) of that section.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 76

CODE OF PRACTICE

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 54, line 40, at end add—
'(bb) the governing bodies of city technology colleges,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 114, in clause 78, page 56, line 40, at end insert—
'(d) if compliance with the preferences would prejudice the ability of any child living within the locality to gain admission to the school of his choice.'.
No. 140, in clause 84, page 63, line 5, at end insert:—
'(ca) the arrangements made by the authority for ensuring that admission procedures are non-discriminatory by ethnicity or gender'.
No. 157, in clause 86, page 65, line 7, after 'school', insert 'or city technology college.'
New clause 22—Establishment of entry clearance systems—
'Every local education authority shall, for each school year, set up or ensure the setting up of an admissions clearance organisation for its area through which all applications for and on behalf of residents of its area to community, foundation, voluntary or maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, and city technology colleges, shall be made.'.

Mr. Hughes: I declare an interest, in that I speak in the light of my experience as a trustee of Bacon's Church of England city technology college and the chair of governors of St. James's Church of England primary school. I hope that the amendments and the new clause will find favour with the Government, because they are designed to correct two perceived, and real, injustices in our state-funded schools' admission procedures.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State responded positively to a general proposition that I put to him on this subject. I was grateful for that, and I hope for a specific positive response from him tonight.
The previous Government set up city technology colleges, and, because of the way in which they were constituted, they were from the beginning—technically, they still are—outside both the local authority and the Church systems. The city technology college of which I speak happens to be a Church of England CTC, but many are not.
Pupils apply to such colleges in the same way as others apply to other secondary schools. They are funded in large measure by the taxpayer and the local authority, as other schools are, topped up by money and obligations from the local diocese and the diocesan board of education. Selection is on an even, non-selective basis, banded in the normal way, and they are mixed schools to which youngsters can apply just as they would to any other Church of England secondary school.
I give full credit to the Secretary of State, who came to speak at Bacon's the other day and acknowledged that CTCs are very popular, for one reason or another. Bacon's is the most popular secondary school in my constituency, and the number of applicants considerably exceeds the number of places.
It is completely unjust that there is no independent appeals system for the pupils and parents who are rejected. If a pupil is turned down by a local primary school, there is an independent appeals system; when someone is turned down for a place at a local secondary school—be it a Southwark-run school or a Roman Catholic or Church of England diocese secondary school—there is an independent appeals system; yet, when the same families apply to another school that is to all intents and purposes of the same type, they discover that they cannot appeal.
I am asking the Secretary of State to make a correction that an earlier Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), very nearly agreed to but then backed away from. We need a mechanism to assess independently the proper running of the admissions policy.
That is important also because of the inevitable subjectivity in any decision. Selecting pupils for a city technology college on the basis that it is a particular type of school builds in subjectivity. Someone independent of the school must be able to give a second opinion and adjudicate. I speak as a school trustee who is hugely concerned about a system that I find it impossible to defend.
Amendments Nos. 157 and 150 would introduce arrangements to achieve those aims. Amendment No. 150 would include city technology colleges' governing bodies in the list of those who will be governed by codes of practice on admission arrangements to be drawn up by the Secretary of State. So it is a light touch approach. I simply want to ensure that the provisions of the Secretary of State's codes of guidance include CTC governing bodies.
The amendment to clause 86 would ensure that an appeal arrangement was set up. On reflection, it is probably not felicitously drafted, and if I were redrafting it, I would include a separate clause or subsection to provide for admissions appeals provisions for local education authorities, the community or voluntary controlled schools maintained by them and for foundation, or voluntary aided schools under the Government's proposals as well as city technology colleges.
Therefore, I do not seek to die in the ditch for that amendment to that clause, but the proposition is clear, and I hope that the Government will concede that admissions appeals systems for CTCs ought to be set up by the time that the Bill reaches the statute book.
My final point on new clause 22 is equally important—in fact, it is more important to more people than the CTC amendment. We propose a co-ordination system for school applications. I wish to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will be warmly disposed towards it. At the moment, the parent of a five-year-old who wants to come to my primary school or of a 10-year-old who is rising 11 and has to go to secondary school makes an application. The parent may apply to one school, or to two or more.
The bright, forceful, vocal, pushy and well-prepared parents know how to work the system. Less able parents sometimes apply only to one school, saying that that is the school they want their youngster to go to. They do not think it through, or imagine that the youngster may be turned down. Once he or she is turned down and the parents have appealed, and perhaps not succeeded, they are too late for any more applications. Even if they are not too late, the child may not get in.
People of my generation had six choices available on the then Universities Central Council on Admissions form. Since then, it has been amended, and there is a five-option choice for the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and for UCAS. None the less, it is still a multiple choice for applications to colleges and universities. We would serve the cause of equal opportunity and equal access for the pupil if local education authorities or someone else—I am not sold on them, but they are the logical starting point—had a duty to set up what I have called an admissions clearance organisation. The authorities would not have to run it, and in some ways I would rather that they did not.
I shall give an example. Parents living two doors away from me just off the Old Kent road with a child who is 10 this year would then have to deal with the fact that they have to make more than one choice and that it could cover Roman Catholic, Anglican and non-denominational schools. They could be required to think through the order of priority, but someone else would then do the administration.
I can say from bitter experience that a very deserving youngster is often not as well served as his or her peers because he or she does not have bright, active and pushy parents who work the system to their advantage. Also, parents applying for their first child do not know the ropes nearly as well as they will when they have to do it for the second.
I ask the Minister to allow us to have a common admissions clearance system. I ask him to think about it positively. I entirely concede that the wording of my amendment is not perfect, but the proposition is clear. The system should apply for state-funded nursery schools, primary schools and secondary schools. The same principle should apply everywhere, because the same issues apply. If we are to provide equality of access, there must be an objectively run system that will allow people to make their choice.
Finally, many youngsters and their families believe that they have the right to the school of their choice, but that is not the case in many parts of Britain—it is normally not the case in rural areas, and often it is not in urban areas. If we are to help people to understand that we may not give people the choice of the school they want but we hope to give them a choice of school, we must from the beginning provide a system that makes it clear that it is not a simple case of saying that one wants one's child to go to this primary school, and, because it is a feeder for that secondary school, they will automatically go there.
We must get them to face up to the fact that choices may be unsuccessful. This system is a way of doing it. If it works for post-16 applications for state-funded institutions, there is no reason why it should not work for under-16 applications to similarly state-funded institutions.

Mr. Dafis: I want to speak to amendment No. 114, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends. The amendment has to be seen in the context of amendments in the next group, including my amendment No. 115. We will debate selection when we get to that list.
Amendment No. 114 has been tabled because of the effect of selection on parental choice. It would add an additional condition to those listed in clause 78(3) on parents' rights to choose schools. It would simply mean that authorities would not be required to comply with parental preference among other things
if compliance with the preferences would prejudice the ability of any child living within the locality to gain admission to the school of his choice".
I had to use the word "locality", because I understand that the term "catchment area" is no longer de rigueur.
This amendment should not be controversial, and I anticipate that the Secretary of State might accept it because, on Second Reading, he said:
I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists … we are not against the exercise of a parental preference; we are against situations in which, for no other reason than the partial selection system and because parents are exercising their preference from a distance, local parents living in close proximity to a school in, for example, Bromley, find it impossible to get their children into it."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
However, not everyone has been convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's assurances. Specifically, the Campaign for State Education has not been convinced. The situation in Wandsworth, as described at an impressive meeting that CASE and the National Union of Teachers held not long ago, is well known to the House, so I do not need to give the details.
John Valentine of the Campaign for Local Education described the situation in a letter to members of the Standing Committee thus:
All the secondary schools have an entrance test. All the tests are different. Each test takes three hours and takes place in the secondary school under exam conditions. As far as the 50 per cent. selective schools are concerned, siblings account for the entire remaining intake. There are no places on proximity at all. Local children who fail the test or who have no older sibling are not in the catchment area for any other school and must travel five or six miles to go to school.
He then gives an example, saying:
My daughter's junior school shares a campus with Graveney school which selects 50 per cent. on general ability. This year, 17 pupils from that school took the test for Graveney school and six got places. There are certainly four children living within 200 metres of the gates of Graveney school who have no place. Seven children have no offer of a place anywhere at the moment.
That was in February.
I am not against parental choice. Indeed, I have already spoken in favour of it this evening, when I presented amendments on behalf of the Third Sector Schools Alliance. Choice is important, in that it can provide for the needs of parents who have preferences regarding type of education, which sometimes cannot be catered for in schools close by. The choice of parents in those circumstances should never prevent other pupils from having the choice of going to their local school. Our amendment would safeguard that fundamental right.

8 pm

Mr. Willis: I wish to speak to amendment No. 140. I thank the Under-Secretary for her comments on the need to monitor the performance of children from ethnic backgrounds in respect of determining standards in


schools. We are grateful for her comments as reported in column 804 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee on Tuesday 3 March 1998.
Discrimination on the grounds of gender or race is very real, even though it often happens inadvertently. At first sight, and even after close examination, admissions procedures often do not suggest problems of discrimination, but those are exactly what they can create. Take the Education Act 1980. Most hon. Members would accept that the policy of open enrolment has generally been a good thing, and that many advantages have been gained from it. However, the removal of some of the access arrangements has given rise to discrimination on the basis of race, culture and ethnicity.
A school may give precedence to pupils who have family connections with it. Older siblings are reasonable, but if the school's criteria include parents or even grandparents, it will almost certainly disadvantage students from ethnic minorities. Departmental circular 6/93 drew attention to the potential discriminatory affects of that criterion. Subsequent circulars omitted that reference. It is especially important that local education authorities be required to ensure that all procedures and criteria should be non-discriminatory.
Giving preference to applicants in certain neighbourhoods may have the effect of discriminating on grounds of race or ethnicity. The neighbourhoods given preference may be mainly white, while others equally near or equally convenient in terms of public transport may contain a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities.
If primary schools give preference to pupils who attended attached nursery classes, it may discriminate against families where the parents are in full-time employment and cannot send their children to part-time nurseries. Afro-Caribbean mothers are known to work full time more than white mothers, so it can discriminate against them.
Selection tests and examinations are discriminatory if they are culturally biased, or if tests for cognitive ability, potential or aptitude require levels of competence in English that pupils who have recently arrived in the United Kingdom cannot possibly be expected to have achieved. If musical talent is a criterion for admission, it would be discriminatory if the school insisted on talent in western classical music rather than, say, south Asian music.
There is a widespread suspicion that prestigious schools do not admit children from groups whose members are disproportionately likely to experience exclusion or to have low achievement. Any instance of treating a prospective pupil as a member of a group rather than an individual would be unjustifiably discriminatory.
The purpose of the amendment is to put in the Bill a requirement for local education authorities and schools to make their admissions policies clear, so that there will be no discrimination on the basis of race or gender.

Mr. Blunkett: I will come in a moment to the amendments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) and of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). First, let me say that I was sympathetic when the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) started. By the time he had finished, I realised what a dog's dinner would result if we agreed to amendment No. 140.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 must be adhered to. If there is a real difficulty in implementing them through the code that we shall issue, I would be disposed to consider the matter again. The longer the hon. Gentleman went on, and the more we delved into the esoteric depths of full or part-time workers with full and part-time nursery children, the more I realised that, on reflection, he could not expect such a provision to be put into a Bill by any party. I ask him to reflect on that, given that I acknowledge, in a spirit of non-partisan politics, that acting against discrimination is crucial.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was good enough to say that I had been to Bacon's city technology college. I am impressed by what it is doing. I appreciate that many parents will want to get children into it.
There are only 15 CTCs, which are unique in the sense that their structure, establishment and raison d'etre are different from those of other schools. They are, in essence, independent, but substantially funded from state funds. They are prepared to co-operate with the new framework that we are laying down. They will be part of the overall code that we will issue. They have an obligation to adhere to the wider policies laid out in the Bill.
I am prepared to talk to CTCs further about how to meet particular problems where procedures have not been followed and where an appeal might be appropriate. The present admissions criteria are unique—though some boroughs wish to band their pupils—and there is a difficulty in terms of opening up the procedure in the manner of the admissions policy as a whole. We are establishing the adjudicator not only in relation to the nature and procedure of the policies but in relation to independent appeals in respect of individual children.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is right to draw the issue to the attention of the House, but I do not think that it can be addressed in precisely the way that the amendments seek. The consultation with the 15 CTCs could make some useful progress. I and Ministers are prepared to do that. In the spirit of the fact that CTCs want to be part of the system, and want to collaborate with us in ensuring that their systems are seen to be fair and transparent, I think that that is reasonable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am reassured. Does he accept the fundamental point that the system for independent adjudication or appeal for CTCs should be similar to, and be seen to be similar to, those of other schools? If he accepts that that is the starting point, I am sure that there will be a way of accommodating them in the general structure that he has described.

Mr. Blunkett: I accept that the transparency we seek should be part of the total process. Because of the different admissions criteria and policy of CTCs, it is the fairness of those procedures, and whether they have been adhered to, that I am most concerned to ensure is open to scrutiny. We need to discuss with them the way in which appeals on such grounds could be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman lives with the issue as a constituency Member. Hon. Members with CTCs in their areas know that the competition for places may make the


situation more heated than it is elsewhere. That is part of the wider issue that amendment No. 114 seeks to address, which is the difficulty of getting an admissions policy that balances parental preference and sensible planning and organisation, and is fair to those who put their neighbourhood school down as their first preference, and to those who exercise a preference from outside the area. For instance, I do not retract one jot of the words that have been quoted from the Second Reading debate on the Monday before Christmas. We need to try to find a way through what is undoubtedly a jungle in terms of admissions policy. I know a lot about the Rotherham judgment, because the parents lobbied me heavily about their case before they went to the High Court.
I believe that there is a way forward, but it will require a great deal more collaboration and co-operation than has been apparent and has been fostered in recent years. The market has assumed that supply and demand will balance themselves, but of course they do not. That answers the case put in new clause 22. I am sympathetic to clearance. Through the code, as part of the new collaborative arrangements, we should encourage authorities and schools to work together to achieve that.
Schools cannot expect someone else to pick up the problem if they discard children. I do not want schools to feel that they do not need to own the problem—that they can pass it over and that someone else will sort it out. I am mindful of real cases such as that of a little girl called Rebecca—I shall not give her full name—from St. Albans, who has shortened tendons. She does not have a place at any of the three schools to which she and her parents applied for the coming September. She cannot walk to the school that has been suggested for her, whereas the three that she opted for are in easy reach. These are real, human problems, not ideological ones in the sense that divides us politically. We need to find a way forward. The guidance that we shall issue shortly for the interim period and the code, on which we shall consult, will seek that way forward.
The discussion tonight shows that there is a genuine issue here that we all need to tackle together. I ask the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to allow us to do that, and not to press the amendment. I ask him to recognise that we genuinely want to overcome the legacy of recent history and move forward by achieving a balance between the choice we seek to achieve and the genuine heartache that is pressed on youngsters who discover that, through no fault of their own, they cannot get into a school anywhere near them, never mind the one that their parents thought that they were exercising their right to prefer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I rise again. I am grateful for the Secretary of State's considered and positive response. I am happy to collaborate with my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Secretary of State and his ministerial and civil service colleagues, and with the schools in question to find a way forward on both issues where I believe that a way forward exists.
I wish to end the debate by, in a sentence, painting a picture that the Secretary of State has also seen as a constituency Member, as a shadow Minister and as a

Minister. At the end of this exercise, I should like never again to have the experience that I have every year when I go to present the prizes at the local authority primary school every July. When I talk to the youngsters, I discover every year that several, as they leave primary school, still do not know where they will go to secondary school two months later.
Few things undermine youthful self-confidence more than that. It makes the children feel less wanted, just at the moment when they are meant to feel that they are going on to greater things. If we can end that lottery of opportunity, we shall be doing them a good service. In that spirit, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, and to continue the conversation elsewhere at an early opportunity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 67, line 40, leave out from 'ability' to 'any' in line 43.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 145, in clause 92, page 68, line 24, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to subsections (5) to (9).'.
No. 148, in page 68, line 25, leave out 'by ability or'.
No. 149, in page 68, line 27, after 'continue', insert
'until the appropriate local education authority has, within three years of the coming into force of this Act, and after consultation with relevant persons and bodies, determined the future or otherwise of such a school.'.
No. 146, in page 68, line 43, at end add—
'(5) This section shall cease to apply at such date as may be determined in accordance with sub-clause (7) in relation to any school in respect of which the adjudicator, or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, has decided to uphold an objection made under subsection 5.
(6) The Local Education Authority or the admissions authority for any maintained school in the area of the Local Education Authority in which a school to which sub-section (1) for the time being applies is situated, may at any time make objection to the adjudicator about the continuation at that school of the provision for selection by ability or by aptitude to which this section refers.
(7) Upon receipt of an objection such as is mentioned in subsection (4) the adjudicator shall either
(a)decide whether and (if so) to what extent the objection should be upheld, or
(b)in such cases as may be prescribed, refer the objection to the Secretary of State for that question to be decided by him.
(8) The decision of the adjudicator or the Secretary of State on the objection shall be binding on the admission authority for the school to which subsection 1 applies and shall have effect on such date as may be specified by the adjudicator or the Secretary of State as the case may be.
(9) For the purposes of this section "the admission authority" shall have the same meaning as Chapter 1 of this Part.'.
No. 115, in clause 94, page 69, line 28, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 70.
No. 90, in page 69, line 28, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2)'.
No. 91, in page 69, leave out lines 36 to 39.

Mr. Foster: I am delighted to see the Secretary of State in his place for this important debate. I have enormous respect for him. He has done a great deal to improve the quality of education in the short time since the new Government took office. He has given new heart to many of the people who work in education. However, the Secretary of State will have disappointed many people working in our schools as well as many of his Back Benchers on the issue of partial selection, with which amendment No. 147 deals. He has failed to deliver commitments that he offered to his party and to the nation before the general election. I shall argue that he has even failed to deliver commitments that he made since the general election and since he took office as Secretary of State.
A number of amendments in this group are tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I do not intend to detain the House on any of them other than amendment No. 147, save to say that I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider carefully the proposal in amendment No. 146 to give LEAs the right of appeal to the adjudicator against partial selection. I hope that the Minister will say that it is the Government's intention to allow the LEA to be one of those that can make such an appeal.
I certainly do not intend to become embroiled in the debate on selection by aptitude which I suspect is to follow shortly. Suffice it to say that, in our deliberations in Committee, we, like the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), were unconvinced by the Government's arguments about the possibility of selection by aptitude. We argue that, except perhaps in the case of music and art, any attempt to discuss selection by aptitude is merely a covert way of talking about selection by ability.
Amendment No. 147 would end partial selection where it exists and ensure that there is no opportunity for further extension of partial selection in our schools. The whole House will remember the ringing words of the Secretary of State at a recent Labour party conference:
Watch my lips: no selection by exams or interviews under Labour".
Unfortunately, if the amendment is not accepted and the Bill remains as written, there will continue to be selection under Labour.
It is worth bearing it in mind that even the White Paper from which the Bill was drawn said clearly in chapter 7, paragraph 33:
The use of partial selection, though limited, has led to controversy and caused parents concern in areas such as Bromley and Hertfordshire.
Even at the time of the drafting of the White Paper, after the election, it was clear that the Government were concerned about the problems created by partial selection. They knew, and they still know today, that selection does not give choice to most parents; it gives choice only to a few whose children pass the various selection tests. The Government know only too well that, with selection, it is the school that selects the pupil, not the parents who select the school.
The Government will be aware of opinion polling on selection. The Gallup opinion poll in 1996 showed that only 19 per cent. of the public thought that selection should be encouraged, while 77 per cent. were opposed

to it. The Government will be well aware of what the Audit Commission has had to say on selection. In its report "Trading Places", the Audit Commission spoke of the real problems of "planning gridlock" in many of our local education authority areas. It went on to note that, once individual schools were able to set their own admission policies independent of each other,
a situation could arise in which all schools in an area opt to select a proportion of their pupils on academic ability—which may not be in the best interest of the local children who fail to selected for any school.
That real problem is not one that the Audit Commission fantasised might happen; it is, as I explained in Committee, already happening in various parts of the country.
In Wandsworth, for example, there are 10 secondary schools: two are Roman Catholic and select by interview, which is something to which the Secretary of State said he would be opposed; two select 50 per cent. of their pupils by ability; one selects 50 per cent. of its pupils on a specialism; one is a specialist technology college, which selects 100 per cent. of its pupils; one selects 25 per cent. of its pupils on ability; and the remaining three use a banding system, taking 20 per cent. of pupils in each of five bands.
Because of those selection arrangements in every one of Wandsworth's secondary schools, many parents in the area are very concerned—to the point where, at forthcoming local elections, some of those parents intend to put up anti-selection candidates. I received a letter from one of those concerned Wandsworth parents. She wrote:
Our local school is 50 per cent. selective and has been for three years. This year there are no places on geography at all. My son's primary school is on the same site—17 children took the test and six got places. Seven children have no place at any school at present. At least four of the children who didn't get a place live within 200 metres of the school gate. One child refused to go to school the day after the results; one told their mother they felt humiliated … The last few months have been hell for everyone and continue to be so for some. My own son has got a place but I have seen him lose confidence and self esteem in the process. His teacher reports that the whole of year 6 is very difficult because of the stress the children are under. The least able are given a very clear message that they are failures.
That is what is happening in one part of the country because of the continuation of partial selection in local schools. That is something that the Government said would not continue, yet, if the Bill is not amended as proposed in amendment No. 147, those problems will continue. In his helpful comments on earlier amendments, the Secretary of State spoke of real human problems, described the plight of Rebecca of St. Albans, and pointed out that that was the sort of issue about which we should all be concerned—how right he was. I hope that he will understand that there are real human problems in Wandsworth, Bromley, Hertfordshire and many other parts of the country where partial selection is used.
We are aware that many members of the Labour party are concerned, as are all Liberal Democrats, about partial selection. In Committee, I referred to the views on partial selection of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who said in January 1997:
The arguments against selection are well known and well made: it weakens parental choice and preference; it institutionalises low expectations of children; and it labels too many of young children as failures."—[Official Report, 27 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 92.]


In a speech in November 1996, the then hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), now the Secretary of State, said:
There are only two ways in which to deal with the problem of parents not being offered choice by their neighbourhood school: first, to lift the standards in those schools dramatically and, secondly, to have a comprehensive and sensible admissions policy that covers the entire area."—[Official Report, 11 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 51.]
It is clear that the vast majority of members of the Labour party had anticipated the ending of partial selection in the Bill. They will have been disappointed, and I suspect that some are still somewhat confused by it.

Mr. Blunkett: I should like to put it on record that I agree with myself; I agree entirely with my remarks that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I should like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that, although they may be discrete, the mechanisms which we have put in place and which are present in the Bill actually achieve the goal which he is setting out this evening. If there is any confusion, it is not on the Treasury Bench, but on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Mr. Foster: If the Secretary of State agrees with himself, I hope that he will listen carefully to the quotation which I shall give shortly. I hope that he will be willing to intervene a second time and tell me whether he still agrees with that comment.
Some Labour Members continued to be confused, even during our detailed debates in Committee. On 24 February, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said:
The hon. Member for Bath said correctly that the Labour party has not believed in the principle of selection by ability for many years, and he rightly grasps what unites us".
The hon. Gentleman is clearly very confused indeed, because it is the Labour party that now wants selection to continue in some of our schools. He went on to say:
partial selection was an unfortunate consequence of the competitive GM experiment introduced by the previous Government".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 589–90.]
From those remarks, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman was keen to see the end of partial selection.
I hope that I have clearly established that the Liberal Democrats have long opposed selection in our schools and that we are opposed to the continuation of partial selection, which the Bill will allow if the amendment is not passed. I shall end by asking the Secretary of State whether he still agrees with one of his own comments, made when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading. He said:
I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman rises to say that he still agrees with that, he will add that he will support amendment No. 147, which would give effect to that clear commitment given on Second Reading.

Mr. Dorrell: Conservative Members will certainly not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for

Bath (Mr. Foster). As his speech made clear, his amendments serve the Liberal Democrat purpose, which is to eliminate selection, whether by ability or aptitude, in all our schools, whether or not it has been shown to be supported by local parents or local teachers, or, most important, to deliver high-quality education in the round to local children. I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats are right to continue a policy of blanket opposition to selection in all circumstances.
I hope that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister for School Standards will, on behalf of the Secretary of State, disavow the words he uttered on 22 December. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that it is not true that the Bill
will remove partial selection where it currently exists."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
That certainly is not my understanding of the Bill's effect, which is why I regard as a welcome step in the right direction those aspects of clauses 91 to 95 that provide recognition and some entrenchment for existing provision for selection by ability and the prospect of selection by aptitude, on which subject I shall have more to say shortly. Therefore, I shall certainly invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose amendments Nos. 147, 145, 148, 149 and 146.
I do not believe that selection is the right answer in every school and in all circumstances. The last thing we need in our school system is a return to an extremely sterile argument about 11-plus, grammar school or secondary modern school in all circumstances. When we discuss the next group of amendments, we shall talk about the arrangements for existing grammar schools and debate whether there should be arrangements to allow, in some areas, grammar schools to be introduced where they do not currently exist, but it is not my case that we should return to a single, blanket model, applicable in all circumstances.
I seek to argue that admission arrangements should be allowed to vary in different schools, reflecting the different views of the teaching profession working in different parts of the country, and reflecting too the different views of parents in the communities that the schools exist to serve. I do not believe that the arguments for and against a specific form of selection can be shown to be so conclusive that they are right in all circumstances and in all localities.
Against that background, I am pleased that the Government's Bill—I suspect, to the surprise of some Labour Back Benchers—recognises existing selection arrangements and, to a limited degree, entrenches the current selection arrangements. I have a different question for the Government: why do Ministers, who are apparently prepared to accept the principle of selection by ability, believe that the position that they inherited from the outgoing Conservative Government on 1 May 1997 represents the best conceivable balance of those different interests that can be achieved?
I say that because the Government's Bill establishes the principle that the selection arrangements that they inherited should be safeguarded. A ring fence should be built around them. They should not be allowed to develop. Presumably the ideas are right, because the Government have the opportunity to change the ideas, and they are not doing so. Why should we accept that the arrangements that the Secretary of State inherited from his predecessor on 2 May 1997 are so perfect that they are incapable of improvement?

Mr. Blunkett: Once again, I want to place on the record the fact that we do not accept the principle of selection by ability. That is absolutely clear, and I have made it clear ever since I took the job of shadow Secretary of State. However, we accept that the removal of selection by ability in whatever form should be undertaken with the maximum consensus and with the legitimacy that comes from the involvement of those most directly concerned. Our policies and the Bill seek to achieve those goals in exactly that way.

Mr. Dorrell: With all respect to the Secretary of State, he is getting into trouble, because he is promoting a Bill in which clause 92(1) says:
Where at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year the admission arrangements for a maintained school made provision for selection by ability or by aptitude … the admission arrangements for the school may continue to make such provision
for as long as
there is"—
and indefinitely is the practical effect—[Interruption.] All right; I shall read it in full:
the admission arrangements for the school may continue to make such provision
for as long as
there is, as compared with the arrangements in force at the beginning of that year—
(a)no increase in the proportion of selective admissions in any relevant age group, and
(b)no significant change in the basis of selection."
Clause 92(1) envisages no end date. The Secretary of State is promoting a Bill that explicitly allows existing selection by ability to continue. It is a pity if the Secretary of State is promoting a Bill a key element of which he is not prepared to defend.
I believe that the terms of the Secretary of State's Bill are right, not because I consider that selection by ability is right in all circumstances, but because—the Secretary of State will recognise this—professional teachers, parents and supporters in the local community around existing schools that operate partial selection wish to continue to operate that system because they believe that it is in the best interests of the children of their area.
If the Secretary of State disagrees with that, he has the opportunity to say that partial selection is wrong in all circumstances. I am pleased that he is not taking that opportunity; I only regret the fact that he is not prepared to defend partial selection.
That is only part of the case that the Government are making to the House in the clauses on selection. The Government are saying that there can be no further development of selection by ability, but they are opening up the possibility of new selective arrangements, provided that we undertake to draw a distinction between selection by ability and selection by aptitude.
I regret the fact that the Secretary of State is not responding to the debate, because that would have provided him with the opportunity to adjudicate—if we may use that word in the context of the Bill—between the Minister for School Standards, sitting on his right, and the Under-Secretary, sitting on his left. I suspect that that is literally true in the context of this argument.
We analysed the issue of ability and aptitude in Committee. We sought to draw out the Under-Secretary on what she understood by the concept of selection by aptitude. Her answer was to avoid the subject and say, "Don't worry; the Minister of State will answer this debate later in the day and I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say." I believe that the Under-Secretary was no more persuaded by the words of the Minister for School Standards in seeking to distinguish between selection by aptitude and selection by ability, than any other member of the Committee. It is not entirely surprising.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 90 and 91 is to seek—if it makes it easier for the Government—to build on the fiction of the distinction between selection by aptitude and selection by ability. The purpose of those amendments is simply to eliminate from clause 94 the effect of subsection (2)—in other words, to allow selection by aptitude without the bar on selection for general aptitude; to allow the Government to preside over the continued slow development, with safeguards, by schools that wish to apply the principles of selection, and to allow that continued development, under the heading of "selection by aptitude", without seeking to obstruct it in the way that clause 94(2) would do.
The reason I say that the distinction between aptitude and ability is total nonsense is emphasised by a look at the dictionary. The Minister for School Standards seeks to persuade us that there is a difference of principle between assessing the natural ability of a child being considered for entry to a school and assessing the aptitude of that child for a range of subjects. In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the word "aptitude" is defined as "natural ability". The Minister is suggesting that we should not be prepared to allow ourselves to select by ability, but that we should be prepared to select children by aptitude, the dictionary definition of which is "natural ability". He has gone a long way around the houses to return to where he started. In my view, the distinction that the Minister seeks to draw is nonsense squared.
The Minister believes in allowing the slow development—where schools want it—of selection by aptitude. In Committee, and now in the House, he has tried to persuade us that selection by aptitude is different from selection by ability. The Labour party and, indeed, the whole House know that it is nonsense to draw a distinction between selection by aptitude and selection by ability.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is speculating about an alliance between the Stephens. We are both in favour of the small-scale continued development of selection, where that is supported by the school and its teachers. I am happy to extend the hand of friendship to the other Stephen in establishing selection—whether by ability or by aptitude—where it is shown to have the support of the teaching profession, the governing body, the admissions authority and the parents. I look forward to my colleague Stephen linking arms with me in that aim.
I am happy to continue the fiction of the distinction between aptitude and ability—it is fiction—if it serves the cause. It allows the Minister to part company with most of the Labour Members who have come into the Chamber to listen to the debate and, with the courage of his convictions, to pursue the development of selection by aptitude where that is shown to be in the interests of the children. I hope that he will recognise the opportunity that


we are offering him, and will not argue that the state of affairs which he inherited on 1 May 1997 is incapable of further improvement.

Mr. Tom Cox: The debate on this group of amendments is of interest both to me and to my constituents. I am one of the Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the London borough of Wandsworth. Over a long period, the Conservative local authority has deliberately set out to lose as many of its education responsibilities as possible. It has encouraged schools, especially in my constituency, to opt out of the local education system. It then claims that it has nothing to do with the schools and has no authority over them. Because of that, the practice of selection has increased throughout the borough.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) should come to my constituency before he pays such glowing tributes to selection. He said that parents' views should be taken into account, but he should come to my constituency and hear what parents there are saying. They are angry and bitter about the system that has been in place in the borough for a number of years. It is no exaggeration to say that there are schools and head teachers in my constituency who make their own rules. They take no notice of the views of local parents.
The schools in my constituency that have adopted a selection procedure are: Graveney school, which selects 50 per. cent of its intake, as does Ernest Bevin; Burntwood, which selects 30 per cent.; and Chestnut Grove, which selects 40 per cent. on subject specialisation. In the borough generally, 10 schools have some form of selection or testing for entry. That system has been in place in Wandsworth for many years.
I have been involved in the issue for a long time, as it is the sort of issue that causes people to come to my advice surgery. I have taken up the matter with Wandsworth council, but it immediately says, "This is nothing to do with us; we have no control over those schools." I took up the matter with the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard); her response was, "We have no responsibility for those schools; they decide their entrance procedures."
8.45 pm
There are youngsters in the borough who live close to their local schools, but cannot get places in them, yet youngsters who do not live within the borough—often not even in adjacent boroughs—get places in those schools. Parents complain that the system is unfair and unjust. It is an abuse of the rights of young children. They set their hearts on getting into their local schools, but then, because of selection or entry procedures, they cannot get places.

Mr. Don Foster: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He will have seen the document "Choose a Wandsworth School". Page 3 tells parents that they should expect their children to undergo seven

different sets of tests, followed by admission interviews, for two particular schools. That must put an enormous strain on the pupils as well as the parents.

Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted one of the criticisms about selection. I have to tell the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that I share the views of parents.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee. Had I been, I would have made many of the comments that I am making now. What my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading clearly suggested to parents and, indeed, to me, that there would definitely be a change in the selection procedures allowed in a number of authorities. My right hon. Friend said:
I am able to confirm that the Bill and the criteria I will lay down as part of our admissions policy will remove partial selection where it currently exists … we are not against the exercise of a parental preference: we are against situations in which, for no other reason than the partial selection system and because parents are exercising their preference from a distance, local parents living in close proximity to a school … find it impossible to get their children into it."—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 664.]
That was a clear statement, which I welcomed—but it is not how I interpret the Bill, especially clause 92.
Clause 92 states:
Where at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year the admissions arrangements for a maintained school made provision for selection by ability or by aptitude",
there will be
"(a) no increase in the proportion of selective admissions in any relevant age group, and
(b) no significant change in the basis of selection."
I must say to my right hon. Friend that, unless those matters are cleared up this evening, there will be continuing concern among parents in my constituency about their right to seek entry for their youngsters to a local school. I do not intend to read loads of quotations, although it would be easy to do so—I am not exaggerating when I say that I have received hundreds of letters over the years from parents in my constituency. A local lady involved in local education was reported to have said:
Parental choice is a myth in Wandsworth. It is only the academic elite or children of parents who can afford coaching for their school entrance tests.
That sums up the position in the borough of Wandsworth.
We know that there are to be adjudicators who will decide disputes. This is the appropriate time to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on this aspect of policy. Like my constituents, I want to know how adjudicators will approach such disputes. Unless changes are made, the disputes will continue. Can my hon. Friend tell us what the adjudicators' terms of reference will be? What will be their code of practice? There are head teachers in my constituency who have no intention of changing their entry policies unless legislation is introduced that obliges them to do so.
How will parents express their wishes to an adjudicator? Will a parent go to an adjudicator to complain about the non-entry of their child to a local school? Assuming that the parent wins the case, must the head of the school accept the decision, or can the head reject a decision that goes against him or her?
There are other questions on which I should like my hon. Friend to comment. Will there be a test case for a school, or will there be a succession of appeals to the


adjudicator by disgruntled parents who feel that their children have not been given the opportunity to get a place in the school of their choice because of the head teacher's attitude and the school's entrance policy? If the adjudicator finds in favour of the parents and allows the child to enter one of the schools that I mentioned, will that become a requirement of that school for all youngsters who seek entry into it? Those issues are repeatedly referred to me by local parents.
I close my remarks with one or two further points. Can my hon. Friend tell us how the adjudicator will be appointed? To whom will he or she report decisions? Will it be to the Secretary of State, and if so, what action could the Secretary of State take on the adjudicator's decision? Would the decision be binding on the Secretary of State, as well as on the school?
This is an extremely important local issue in my constituency. We have an opportunity in the debate this evening to clear up some of the doubts and confusion that, sadly, exist.

Mr. Dafis: I shall speak to amendment No. 115, which would in effect delete clause 94 and remove the provision for the extension of selection by aptitude in one or more subjects. My amendment would have a similar effect to that tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and the opposite effect to amendments Nos. 90 and 91 tabled by the Conservatives.
I look forward to a Division on the amendments, which will unquestionably be a Division on the principle of selection. It will be a matter of whether we approve, to some degree, of selection, and whether we want an enhancement and strengthening of the selection principle in our education system.
The Secretary of State said that there was confusion on these Benches, and that the provisions of the Bill would phase out selection. I must tell him that the confusion is far more widespread than these Benches. Many people from all sectors of education have studied the Bill and come to the conclusion that it will extend selection, rather than reduce it.
The question is not why I and my hon. Friends tabled amendment No. 115, nor why the Liberal Democrats tabled a similar amendment in Committee and have tabled other amendments before us tonight. The issue is why the Government devised clause 94 in the first place. On top of the fact that they are allowing pre-existing arrangements to continue, they have devised a clause that extends the provision.
Might the Government have done that out of conviction? Are they enthusiastic about the idea of specialisation? Do they believe that certain schools with a specialism might offer high-quality provision, which would be available to pupils from other schools as well?
I know that that is being said, but I am highly sceptical about building specialisation formally into the school structure. I am certainly in favour of allowing schools to develop as centres of expertise and excellence in particular subjects, as the opportunities arise and as the talents of teachers at a particular time allow. Schools have always done that, and other schools have benefited from that example. If the intention was to extend that, one might see some merit in it, but why associate it with selection?
That brings me to my second hypothesis. Might the reason be that the Government have swallowed the George Walden line? The concern, which I believe is sincerely felt, is that the public-private divide is a fundamental flaw in the English school system, and that the only way to entice the private sector into the public sector parlour is by conceding to some degree on the issue of selection—allowing an element of selection as a way of trying to close the divide between the public and the private sector. If that is the case, the Government are conceding on a principle that is fundamental to a united, inclusive society. As far as Wales is concerned, they are addressing a problem that does not exist. We do not have that divide in Wales.
As a third possibility, do the Government feel that they must mollify sectors of the electorate whose loyalty they regard as necessary for electoral victory? They might be wrong about that, as some public opinion polls—which have already been mentioned in the debate—show. However, if such mollification was the Government's reason for compromising on a matter of fundamental principle, it was an even worse reason.
Margaret Tulloch, the spokesperson for the Campaign for State Education, CASE, said in a press release:
CASE is amazed that a Labour Government seems to be happy to allow more selection to be introduced especially when it claims it wants schools to be inclusive and is concerned about social exclusion.
Rather than encouraging selection this Government should be unpicking the school pecking order which has reduced choice for most parents and damaged our children for so long.
I do not think that the Bill will unpick anything. Ministers claim that that is not true, and that the Bill will gradually achieve an unpicking of our current selective system. If that is true, they were being fiendishly clever in their design of the legislation.
9 pm
As I said, the Bill will strengthen selection on the basis of ability. Let us be clear about the word "ability", as the Government seek to distinguish between aptitude and ability. As the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, the distinction is completely spurious. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the "Oxford English Dictionary" in making his point. I should like to quote Wordsworth, who described Michael—in that very great poem of the same name—as being "apt for all affairs". In other words—using a different word for the same thing—Michael was able to perform his tasks well. He had the aptitude, skills and ability to do well all the tasks needed for his calling. There is no substance in the distinction between aptitude and ability.
The Government would say that selection will be practised in only a small minority of subjects. It is worth asking: how many is "one or more" subjects? How large a minority is it: one, two or possibly even more? Three or more subjects would be a substantial minority. Moreover, I am not convinced that the Government are considering including only subjects such as music and art. I dare say that they are considering subjects such as science. If so, subjects will be included that are pretty close to the core curriculum.
Ministers would also say that only 10 per cent. of pupils will be selected on the basis of ability. I have two comments on that. First, in clause 94, the Government are


giving credibility to the principle of selection on the basis of ability. Once that principle is established, it could be more enthusiastically applied later. I do not think that the Secretary of State has any enthusiasm for the principle: my regard for him is too high to believe that he does. However, a future—Labour, Conservative or any other—Administration might wish to apply the principle with much greater enthusiasm.
Secondly, the provision and principle will be entrenched—as the right hon. Member for Charnwood said—in the statute book. The Bill will entrench the selection principle. If 10 per cent. selection is acceptable, why not 20 per cent. or more? The percentage might well be increased.
As I said in the debate on Second Reading, aptitude in two or more subjects—or even in one subject—is a good indicator of general ability. Although that is not always true, it is largely true. Someone with considerable aptitude in one subject will have good general abilities.
Clause 94 will therefore implement selection by ability and establish selection as a principle in school education in England and—unfortunately—in Wales. Moreover, it will do it so that selection may be expanded.
In some ways, the current situation is worse than in the old days of the 11-plus exams, certainly as I remember them. In those days, pupils were guaranteed a place in a local school—whether it was one of two or, at the most, three schools. Furthermore, the child had to sit only one exam, which decided the matter. Under the old system, there was also an opportunity to change schools at the 13-plus. Now, however, we have an extraordinary, complex mish-mash that imposes severe strain on children and has serious inherent inefficiencies. The Government seem to be intent on adding to that mish-mash, making it even more complex.
There is no wonder that there are strong feelings—not only among people such as myself—about selection. In a letter to me, CASE's representative says:
I do hope that there is a vote on the clauses allowing existing partial selection and the 10 per cent. selection on aptitude. Labour MPs should be ashamed to vote for them"—
which is the same as saying that Labour Members should be ashamed to vote against this group of amendments.
There is no consensus in Wales on selection, but—as far as I can determine, because the matter will not be subject to regulation or secondary legislation—clause 94 will apply to Wales. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said that Wales will be a selection-free zone. I do not know whether he said, "Read my lips," when he uttered that statement, but he said it. I am glad that I heard him say it, and am sure that it is the type of thing that he would wish were true. I should be interested to know—it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber—how Wales can be excluded from the provisions of the clause, which will be primary legislation and cannot be varied in secondary legislation.
Groups of parents in Wandsworth say that, in local elections, they will run candidates against Labour candidates on a "no selection in education" ticket. There is a political message for Labour there. In Wales, however, such groups would not have to use those methods. At least one party—I am sure that the hon.

Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would say at least two parties—is available to such groups as an alternative, as we remain totally committed to the comprehensive principle.
I hope also that, in a year or two, there will be an alternative approach in raising standards—which is undoubtedly necessary—and in ensuring rigour in the education system. We also need an alternative approach in developing the competitive market that has been introduced in the past 18 years and more. That matter is not being tackled, to put it rather mildly. I hope that an alternative approach will emerge from the deliberations of the National Assembly for Wales. The big question for me and for other people from Wales is whether the assembly will have the powers to provide that—it will certainly wish to.

Mr. Tony Benn: I shall vote for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), because I read it as the Labour party policy to which I personally have been committed throughout my years in the House. If there is one thing that has characterised the thinking of the Labour party it is that it has been in favour of comprehensive education—not just comprehensive schools but comprehensive education.
The Conservatives were arguing for the 11-plus. They have now modified that view for the simple reason that comprehensive education was much more popular among Conservative voters. For every winner there are losers, and Conservative voters who discovered that their little boy or girl had not got into a selective school were very angry. It is true that selection is a terrible tragedy. The Bill might talk about selection by aptitude or ability, but that could be transformed into rejection by aptitude or ability. The Bill provides that certain people can be rejected because they are thought to have inadequate ability or inadequate aptitude. That is no basis for education.
I am a great believer in choice in education. By that I mean that every child should have the opportunity to go to a school where the full range of knowledge is available. That is the basis of comprehensive education. The idea of giving teachers or heads the opportunity to keep people out is not about choice for pupils but about the determination of head teachers to control admission, even if it is not in the public interest.
The issue will not go away. I am very disappointed because I thought that the amendment would be endorsed by the Government, or that the principle would have been in the first draft of the Bill. That was not the case. Having stood for Parliament many times on the basis that I believed in comprehensive education, I have to say that amendment No. 147 corresponds to my deeply held conviction and the pledges that I have given in 15 or 16 general elections to the constituents who have elected me to the House.

Mrs. May: In no debate in Standing Committee was the difference between old and new Labour brought so sharply into focus as in the debate on selection, and especially on whether selection could be made on the basis of ability or aptitude and whether there was a distinction between the two. I venture to suggest that that difference between old and new Labour has been all too clearly exemplified by the speech just made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In Committee, the difference emerged in a number of ways.
The Minister for School Standards assured us that there was a clear distinction between aptitude and general ability. He said that he would give examples of how aptitude could be assessed. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) told us:
I do not know of any reliable measures of aptitude".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 597.]
As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pointed out, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) told us:
the Labour party has not believed in the principle of selection by ability for many years".'[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 589.]
Indeed, that position was reinforced tonight by the Secretary of State, who said in an intervention that the Labour Government did not accept the principle of selection by ability.
I refer the Secretary of State and the Ministers here tonight to a speech made in Southwark cathedral by the Prime Minister back in January 1996 when he was Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Members may be aware that at the time it was regarded as seminal in defining what the stakeholder approach meant in various spheres.
In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the need to make good
those things left undone at the time of the ending of the 11-plus. Comprehensive admission does not of itself make for good schooling.
He went on to talk about
transcending old structures, refusing to go back to the 11-plus but refusing too to make do with uniformity.
He then referred to a previous speech in which he had talked about
the need to recognise that children do have different abilities"—
not aptitudes, but abilities. He also talked about how this could be recognised in primary schools, and continued:
It is even more self-evident at the secondary school level. It is important that we break down the rigidity in our system that assumes all pupils learn at the same speed in different subjects".
Quite why the different abilities to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in that speech have been turned in the Bill into aptitude has not been explained by Ministers who, having promised in Committee to define the distinction between aptitude and ability, singularly failed to do so.
I venture to suggest that the interpretation by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis)—I see from his expression that I have badly mispronounced his constituency—is correct. His reading of the Bill is that the clauses that refer to selection by aptitude are nothing more than references to selection by ability, and that there is no distinction between them. That very point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who gave us the dictionary definition of the words.
The reality is that the Government are trying to pull the wool over the eyes not only of the general public but of their own Back Benchers. By pretending that there is a difference between aptitude and ability, they are suggesting that they have not left behind the solid Labour party principle, enunciated in the Chamber tonight and previously in Committee, that there should be no such thing as selection by ability. The Bill will allow selection to continue; indeed, it will allow its extension.
We must ensure that the education provided for each child is appropriate to particular needs and circumstances, and that may be achieved by providing for different forms of selection, for particular schools that select on ability or aptitude and for setting or streaming in a school. In my constituency, there are some first-class comprehensives, but no selective schools; however, some first-class junior schools find that setting in English and in maths works extremely well. In some circumstances, it is better to teach children of certain abilities together rather than to teach a class of children who cross the whole range of abilities.
I support amendments Nos. 90 and 91. Although the Government pretend that they have not, they have accepted selection and selection by ability. They have also accepted the extension of selection. The amendments would help the Government to achieve their apparent objective of allowing schools to provide the right education for children by permitting a degree of selection.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary spoke in support of schools being able to select by ability. In a debate about banding, she said:
Some people think that for a school to be effectively comprehensive it should have a cross-section of ability. That is debatable, and I do not feel strongly about it. I certainly do not feel that a school cannot be comprehensive unless it has a cross-section of ability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998: c. 642.]
The Government should accept the Bill's effects, and they should also accept the amendments.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I support amendments Nos. 90 and 91 for the simple reason that I believe in freedom of choice. We have heard many comments about the London borough of Wandsworth, but we did not hear an explanation why, despite the criticisms, the people of Wandsworth have voted time and again for a local council that continues with policies of selection.
I respect the wishes of my constituents and endorse whole-heartedly the fact that they vote for a non-selective system, despite being only a short distance down the A3 from Wandsworth. The system works in the area I represent, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, words have been used selectively in our debate about a non-selective system.
There is selection at 18 and at 16; indeed, many people in the education world are reaching a consensus that there should be an element of selection at 14, and in schools an element of setting—and therefore of selection—is increasingly being found to deliver better results, not only for the ablest pupils, but for pupils at every stage of ability.
A self-selective system exists alongside my area's non-selective system. The parents of nearly one in five children in Surrey have chosen of their own volition to put their children through an independent education, which may involve an element of selection. It is deeply dispiriting that Ministers who claim to have endorsed the spirit of the enterprise economy, and who claim to want the private sector to become more involved in education, are turning against the principles that underpin the success of independent schools despite being aware of the evidence of their success. That contradiction is at the heart of the Minister's policies.
Ministers should understand that the ideal is cohabitation between independent and state schools. Indeed, in parts of the country that objective is already being achieved. It is not socially divisive if one family chooses to spend its money on independent education while another family in the same street chooses to spend its money on a holiday—or a second or third holiday—overseas. The choice is there, and it is in that spirit that we should all defend the principle of parents' right to ask for a selective system. Some hon. Members may not believe that such a system is right for their own children, or for other children; let them persuade parents of that.
I am left with a nagging worry. Perhaps the fact that there is a consensus in favour of selection among adolescents is due to the fact that there is a consensus about the means by which academic achievements are measured by the time children reach that age. What if we find that we can adopt new methods of assessment enabling us to assess more fairly the different academic abilities of those at lower school ages?
In such circumstances, we can imagine the determination to stamp out selection in that age group being seen for what it is—a dogmatic throwback to the era of education that failed us in so many ways, and would fail us again if it ever got a grip on the Department. What worries many Conservative Members is what lies behind the warm words and tokenism that are a hallmark of the Bill.
There is no better example of such tokenism than the distinction drawn by the clauses that we seek to amend between aptitude and ability. If we read those clauses literally, we must deduce that a school that wishes to encourage children with musical ability will be allowed to ask those children to sing "Twinkle, twinkle, little star" from memory, but will not be allowed to ask them to read it from a music sheet because that would be a test of their reading ability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] It is true. As in many other contexts, the drafting of the Bill means that everything is down to interpretation and the leniency or otherwise of Ministers.
Like many other parts of the Bill, the clauses that we seek to amend are all about putting power and decisions into the hands of a few Labour Members and taking power and decisions away from the parents who should have them. In tabling our amendments, we asked the Government to respect our view.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I sincerely apologise for missing the beginning of the debate—[Interruption.] I was at what I assure hon. Members was an important meeting. I will tell them all about it if they want me to.
I want to make three brief points. First, let me ask the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to consider genuinely whether abolishing selection tests helped the working class. As hon. Members know, I come from Glasgow and was educated there. There used to be selection tests in Glasgow, and they gave people an opportunity to break through the class barriers.
A few weeks ago, I sent the Secretary of State figures showing what had happened to Glasgow education since we abolished selection tests. What we have now is

blatant class segregation. Parents who want to help their children are trying to find the cash with which to buy a house in a nice area where there appears to be better education. The tragedy is that better education does not stem from buildings, teachers or anything apart from parental expectation. I can think of one school in which any child who gains any qualification is regarded as having done well, while a child living half a mile away who does not get to university is regarded as not having done well.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will go to Glasgow, look at educational achievement since selection was abolished, and realise that abolishing tests does not help working-class people. It damages them and prevents them from breaking through rigid barriers in cities such as Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and many others. We do no service if we build walls over which people cannot jump.
What is the relevance of the 10 per cent. selective admissions figure? In Southend-on-Sea, where I now live, tests provide for 25 per cent. selection. I would like Ministers to appreciate that, although we happen to have a great deal more poverty, much more unemployment—I am afraid it is about 9.7 per cent. in my constituency, which is extremely high—much bed-and-breakfast accommodation, many broken homes and a great deal of social deprivation, in A-level results we are streets ahead of the rest of Essex, which I am sure has far more large houses, people with big salaries and the kind of financial situation which many in Southend would like. I got the figures from the Library earlier today.
I appeal to the Minister to consider the situation in Northern Ireland. We automatically think that Scotland has the best education in Britain. In fact, achievement in Northern Ireland, as in Southend, is streets ahead—not because people are cleverer but because a 25 per cent. selection system achieves better results overall. If any hon. Member or the Minister would like to see the figures from the Library, I would be only too glad to supply them. The average points score in Southend for achievement at A-level is 19.8, whereas in Essex as a whole it is 16.6—and Essex is supposed to be quite good.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State and the Government have moved on grammar schools and selection. I do not believe that that is in any way an attempt to win votes or to try to stop socialism; I am sure that the Secretary of State has realised that he would not be helping able people from good families and poor homes by abolishing selection tests or grammar schools.
I hope that, having made concessions that will allow selection and grammar schools to continue in some form, the Labour party will realise that, although in places such as Glasgow Labour councillors, for the best possible motives, abolished selection tests and grammar schools, genuinely believing that that would produce equality of opportunity and get rid of some privilege, all that such actions did was destroy opportunities for the working class, build class values and do no good for education. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have looked with care and attention at the list of Glasgow examination results that I sent him two weeks ago and realised that the steps that he is taking are helpful to education and not damaging to socialism, as some would suggest.

Mr. Byers: The amendments address two distinct issues: partial selection and of 10 per cent. selection on the basis of aptitude for a specialism. I shall deal with both.
It is worth reminding the House that clauses relating to partial selection will be subject to the code of practice on admissions, to which clause 76 refers. Hon. Members have, of course, made their comments without being aware of the contents of that code of practice. The House will have the opportunity, as clause 77 clearly states, to debate and vote on the detail of the code of practice at a later date.
That is particularly relevant to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) about parents in his constituency—and, indeed, in Wandsworth generally—being angry and bitter about the situation in which they find themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will produce a code of practice, there will be consultation, and it will be presented to the House.
The Bill provides that the adjudicator will be responsible for determining issues when there is no local agreement. He will have to follow the code of practice, which will give him the power to end existing partial selection if he believes that it is not in the best interests of other local schools, children and their parents. Without giving away the likely details of the code of practice, I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend would not be prepared to have a code that allowed seven different tests to apply to children, as currently happens in Wandsworth.
9.30 pm
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked whether a local education authority could refer a matter to the adjudicator. That is an important issue. The local education authority will be an admissions authority, because it will have responsibility for community schools. It will have the power to refer matters to the adjudicator.
We want to go further than that. There may be situations in which a local education authority that contains partially selective schools is not the only interested body. Neighbouring authorities may also have a legitimate interest because of the impact that partial selection has on children in their area. It would be appropriate to give power to a neighbouring authority to refer a matter t0o the adjudicator in such circumstances. When my right hon. Friend brings regulations forward, he will be mindful of the problems of neighbouring authorities, such as Southwark and Wandsworth or Greenwich and Bromley. Those neighbouring authorities have a legitimate interest in the effects of partial selection.
To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, adjudicators will have to follow the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State. If they fail to do so, their decisions can be subject to judicial review if anyone disagrees with them.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister explain how the adjudicator will cope with the potential disappointment and bitterness of a child from a less well-off background who, under the proposed new non-selective system, finds that the distance from his home to the school that his academic ability demands is too great, denying him the education that his ability requires?

Mr. Byers: I shall try to make sense of what the hon. Gentleman has said because I have a generous spirit—that

is part of my nature. I disagreed with many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but I agreed with his comments about the basis of selection. The school selects; the parent does not choose. That is the nature of selection. By promising no extension of partial selection and producing a code of practice under clause 76, we shall ensure that the continuing of partial selection does not cause difficulty for local children. That has been a consistent Labour policy.

Mr. Dafis: Did I hear the Minister aright? I thought I heard him say that there would be no extension of partial selection. In that case, what is clause 94 about?

Mr. Byers: I shall move on shortly to talk briefly about the idea of 10 per cent. specialism by aptitude, but first I must conclude my comments on what has been said about partial selection. I know that it is creating difficulties in areas such as Bromley—

Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Byers: No, I want to make my point first.
Bromley, Hertfordshire and Wandsworth are probably the three local education authorities most adversely affected by partial selection. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brings the code of practice before the House, hon. Members will see how we intend to deal with the problem.
We had a full debate in Committee on the distinction between aptitude and ability, and exchanged definitions from the dictionary and elsewhere. I had not had Wordsworth quoted to me on the subject before, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for drawing the reference to our attention.
A clear distinction exists between aptitude and ability. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said that that was a nonsensical distinction, so it may be worth drawing to his attention what the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said on 20 May 1996 when, as Secretary of State for Education and Employment, she launched some research:
To help specialist schools which want to identify a pupil's aptitude for the specialist subject as opposed to ability, I am announcing today a government funded research project".
The right hon. Lady was clearly of the view that there was a distinction between ability and aptitude. The findings of that research project were interesting; that ability is an all-embracing factor that suggests whether a candidate will be able successfully to undertake a course of study, whereas aptitude is narrower, determining whether someone can take advantage of a particular course of study. A clear distinction was made, and the findings were made available by the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
The point of our proposals on selection according to aptitude is that, although we believe in the comprehensive principle, it has to be modernised—and that is what the proposals in the Bill will do. Modernising the comprehensive principle is part of the Government's commitment. We shall embrace concepts such as setting, where that is appropriate in the interests of individual


pupils; we have no problem with that, and we shall have a range and diversity of provision, but within the comprehensive principle.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Byers: No; I want to make progress.
The amendments are in many respects backward looking; they do not take the debate forward. Our proposals are pragmatic and realistic and put the interests of children first. They are modern and they are based on partnership. In that spirit, I ask the House to reject the amendments, and to support the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister was at his most generous when he told us that he accepted the fact that local education authorities need to be able to object to partial selection in their areas. His generosity went even further when he said that neighbouring authorities could also object, and I am grateful for that.
However, the hon. Gentleman was at his most enigmatic when he told us that much would depend on the code of practice to be announced by the Secretary of State—yet, although speaking from the Dispatch Box, he told us that he himself would not be giving away any details about what would be in that code of practice. I suspect that this is the one occasion when we would have welcomed the full monty from the Minister.
The Minister made an interesting slip of the tongue. He wanted to say that he had a generous "spirit", but he said something that sounded like "spin-it". In his attempts to explain to the House the difference between aptitude and ability, he was spinning around. He will know that the majority of researchers do not accept what he says, including Professor Peter Mortimore, who in today's The Guardian makes it clear that there is no evidence for making a distinction between the two.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made clear his concern about the situation in Wandsworth. The Minister told him that he need have no worries because the Bill will introduce a system in which there will be an adjudicator. If a parent in Wandsworth objects to what is going on, he can appeal to the adjudicator. If the adjudicator decides to, he can get rid of partial selection. I hope that that does not reassure the hon. Gentleman. Even if partial selection by ability goes, there will be a continuation of partial selection by aptitude, and that can grow.
One of the most worrying things I have seen in the House since the general election is the way in which the Labour and Conservative parties have joined in the Lobbies to take away benefits from lone parents. Labour Members ought to be concerned when they hear an offer from the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) to stand together, arm in arm, with the Government on selection by aptitude and ability. I hope that that sets bells ringing for many Labour Members.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would get rid of partial selection. The Bill does nothing of the sort. Without our amendment, partial selection by ability and aptitude will continue. We are

fundamentally opposed to that, and I hope that all other right hon. and hon. Members who are opposed to selection by ability or aptitude will join us in the Lobbies.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 284.

Division No. 223]
[9.41 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beggs, Roy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Kirkwood, Archy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Livsey, Richard


Brake, Tom
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Oaten, Mark


Breed, Colin
Öpik, Lembit


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Burnett, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Burstow, Paul
Sanders, Adrian


Cable, Dr Vincent
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Chidgey, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Dafis, Cynog
Tyler, Paul


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Wallace, James


Fearn, Ronnie
Webb, Steve



Foster, Don (Bath)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil


Hancock, Mike



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harvey, Nick
Mr. Paul Keetch and Mr. Andrew Stunell.


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caton, Martin


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Allen, Graham
Church, Ms Judith


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Ann


Barron, Kevin
Coaker, Vernon


Battle, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Tony


Benton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Berry, Roger
Cooper, Yvette


Betts, Clive
Corbett, Robin


Blackman, Liz
Corston, Ms Jean


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cousins, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cummings, John


Borrow, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
(Copeland)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dalyell, Tam


Browne, Desmond
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Buck, Ms Karen
Darvill, Keith


Burden, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burgon, Colin
Davidson, Ian


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Caborn, Richard
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Denham, John


Canavan, Dennis
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Cann, Jamie
Dobbin, Jim


Caplin, Ivor
Donohoe, Brian H


Casale, Roger
Doran, Frank






Dowd, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Drown, Ms Julia
Lepper, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Edwards, Huw
Lock, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAvoy, Thomas


Ennis, Jeff
McCabe, Steve


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Macdonald, Calum


Flint, Caroline
McDonnell, John


Flynn, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foulkes, George
McLeish, Henry


Fyfe, Maria
McNulty, Tony


Galloway, George
MacShane, Denis


Gapes, Mike
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marek, Dr John


Godman, Norman A
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grant, Bernie
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Grogan, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mitchell, Austin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Healey, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Mountford, Kali


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Home Robertson, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoon, Geoffrey
Norris, Dan


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Howells, Dr Kim
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Humble, Mrs Joan
Perham, Ms Linda


Hurst, Alan
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L


Iddon, Dr Brian
Plaskitt, James


Illsley, Eric
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Prescott, Rt Hon John


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Ms Jenny
Quin, Ms Joyce


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Kemp, Fraser
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robertson, Rt Hon George


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
(Hamilton S)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rogers, Allan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)





Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Trickett, Jon


Shaw, Jonathan
Truswell, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine
White, Brian


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Soley, Clive
(Swansea W)


Spellar, John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wills, Michael


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Stevenson, George
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wise, Audrey


Stott, Roger
Woolas, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wray, James


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sutclifte, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann



(Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. John McFall and Jane Kennedy.


Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 94

PERMITTED SELECTION: APTITUDE FOR PARTICULAR SUBJECTS

Amendment proposed: No. 90, in page 69, line 28, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2)'.—[Mrs. Browning.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 331.

Division No. 224]
[9.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Blunt, Crispin
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brady, Graham
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Flight, Howard


Burns, Simon
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Fraser, Christopher


(Chipping Barnet)
Gibb, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gray, James


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Greenway, John


(Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Dominic






Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Pickles, Eric


Hammond, Philip
Prior, David


Hawkins, Nick
Randall, John


Hayes, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Ruffley, David


Jenkin, Bernard
St Aubyn, Nick


Johnson Smith,
Sayeed, Jonathan


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Key, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lansley, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Leigh, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Letwin, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Loughton, Tim
Townend, John


Luff, Peter
Trend, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


MacKay, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Maples, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Mates, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wilkinson, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Norman, Archie
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ottaway, Richard



Page, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paice, James
Sir David Madel and Mr. Stephen Day.


Paterson, Owen





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brand, Dr Peter


Ainger, Nick
Breed, Colin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allan, Richard
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burgon, Colin


Baker, Norman
Burnett, John


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Burstow, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Stephen


Barron, Kevin
Cable, Dr Vincent


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Caplin, Ivor


Bermingham, Gerald
Casale, Roger


Berry, Roger
Caton, Martin


Best, Harold
Chaytor, David


Betts, Clive
Chidgey, David


Blackman, Liz
Chisholm, Malcolm


Blears, Ms Hazel
Church, Ms Judith


Blizzard, Bob
Clapham, Michael


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clark, Dr Lynda


Borrow, David
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Brake, Tom
Clelland, David





Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cummings, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


(Copeland)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Illsley, Eric


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jamieson, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Ms Jenny


Dobbin, Jim
(Wohlerh'ton SW)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keetch, Paul


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Ennis, Jeff
Kidney, David


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fisher, Mark
Kirkwood, Archy


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lepper, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foulkes, George
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fyfe, Maria
Livsey, Richard


Galloway, George
Lock, David


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Grant, Bernie
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
McLeish, Henry


Grogan, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gunnell, John
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mandelson, Peter


Hancock, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Hanson, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harvey, Nick
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)






Milburn, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Moran, Ms Margaret
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mountford, Kali
Soley, Clive


Mudie, George
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Steinberg, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stevenson, George


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Oaten, Mark
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stringer, Graham


O'Hara, Eddie
Stunell, Andrew


Olner, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Öpik, Lembit
(Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Timms, Stephen


Pollard, Kerry
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Trickett, Jon


Primarolo, Dawn
Truswell, Paul


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rammell, Bill
Tyler, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Wallace, James



Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
White, Brian


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


(Hamilton S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rogers, Allan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
(Swansea W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roy, Frank
Willis, Phil


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wills, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winnick, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Sanders, Adrian
Woolas, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Wray, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Mr. John McFall and Jane Kennedy.


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the School Standards and Framework Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Sir John Stanley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order arising out of a different aspect of a letter to which I referred earlier in our proceedings. The letter in question is that sent by an official of the Department for Education and Employment dated 9 March to the Kent education authority. That letter included a schedule of 45 schools, primary and secondary, that were potential candidates for closure on the grounds of surplus places. It is extraordinary that among the secondary schools in the list is the Judd grammar school in Tonbridge in my constituency, where in 1997, 100 per cent. of the pupils gained five or more grade A to C GCSEs.
The letter in question is, I believe without doubt, legally highly prejudicial to the proper and fair conduct of a ballot in relation to the Judd school and any other grammar school that has been the subject of similar letters. That being the case, it is incumbent on the Minister to assure the House that, in proceedings on the amendments, a Law Officer will be summoned to the House to say whether, in his view, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been responsible for misdirecting himself; whether the Bill will have to be amended to ensure that schools that have been treated in the same way as the Judd school are excluded from the provisions of the Bill; or that the letter will be formally be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the more he has said, the clearer it has become that his point is a matter of argument, which he has put on the record. There are other ways in which the matter must be pursued. It is not a matter on which the occupant of the Chair can rule this evening.

Clause 96

DESIGNATION OF GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in page 70, line 23, leave out 'had' and insert 'has'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 176, in page 70, line 23, leave out
'at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year'.
No. 177, in page 70, line 32, at end insert—
'(3A) Regulations may make provision that where a maintained school is not a grammar school,—
(a) the admission authority for a school may submit an application to the Secretary of State to change the admission arrangements of the school so that the school will qualify for designation as a grammar school under this section;
(b) when the Secretary of State receives an application under this subsection he shall arrange for a ballot of parents who would qualify to vote in a ballot under section 97 and if a majority of those parents support the application of the admission authority, the admission authority shall secure that the admission arrangements of the school are revised in accordance with its proposal.'.

No. 178, in page 71, line 10, leave out from 'read,', to first 'as' in line 12.

No. 160, in clause 97, page 71, line 22, at end insert—
'(bb) to any grammar school or group of grammar schools of a denominational character.'.
No. 179, in page 71, line 27, after 'section', insert,
'provided that the parents of children who are for the time being pupils of the grammar school shall always be so eligible'.
No. 165, in page 72, line 40, after 'not', insert 'at public expense'.

Mr. Dorrell: The amendments deal with the Government's approach to the remaining grammar schools left in the maintained system—just over 160. I firmly believe that clause 96 and the way in which the Government have handled it are one of the worst aspects of the Bill. The Labour party's attitude to grammar schools goes back a long way. It would be improper of me to repeat the quote that is attributed to Anthony Crosland on grammar schools. His attitude was expressed in the late 1960s. As we saw in Committee, Labour Members' prejudices towards grammar schools have changed not one iota in the intervening 30 years. The Minister's attitude is slightly different, but that of his Back Benchers, as it was manifested in Committee, is not different in any important detail from that expressed all those years ago by the late Anthony Crosland.
We do not need to look at Labour Back Benchers' facial expressions to see contemporary evidence of the strength of that prejudice within the Labour party. The present Secretary of State, when interviewed by the Daily Mail in January 1996, made clear his approach to the question of grammar schools as of that moment. He was quoted as saying:
It is 30 years since Crosland embarked on this. I don't think anyone should expect me to complete his work in the first three months of a Labour Government.
He made it clear that his instinct was the same as Anthony Crosland's; he simply asked for greater time than three months to deliver the objective that Anthony Crosland had set out. Later in the same interview, he said:
We have made a clear pledge. There will be no more selection. I'm going to be as blunt about it as that.
In January 1996, the attitude adopted by the present Secretary of State was extremely straightforward: he was opposed to selection and he was opposed to grammar schools as the manifestation of selection. It was a continuation of the policy pursued by the Labour party, both in government and in opposition, for more than 30 years. In January 1996, the position was clear.
My hon. Friends will remember that, little more than a year later, there was a by-election in the Wirral, which was awkward from the Labour party's point of view.

Mr. David Jamieson: Who won?

Mr. Dorrell: The Whip intervenes—although he should never intervene because he is unable to respond to the reply—to ask who won the Wirral by-election. That is a matter of history, as are the Labour party's pledges during the by-election, which certainly contributed to its result. During the Wirral campaign, it became clear to the Labour party that the attitude expressed by the present

Secretary of State in that Daily Mail interview and on numerous other occasions in the preceding months was not saleable on the streets of the Wirral.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Where is he?

Mr. Dorrell: It is, indeed, a pity that the Secretary of State is not here.
During the Wirral by-election campaign, the attitude of the Labour party evolved to the extent that, by 7 February 1997, the Financial Times was not reporting firm opposition to the principle of selection in grammar schools; on the contrary, it was saying that, under a Labour Government, there would be
no threat to their continuance, or to their ethos, or to their quality.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is one of the reasons why the Labour party is so keen on regional development agencies? With regional development agencies, there could be a different Labour party policy for each part of the country.

Mr. Dorrell: We are not trying to encourage the Labour party to have different policies in different parts of the country. We are attempting to give effect, in a Bill introduced after the general election, to the Labour party's pre-election policy commitments. During the Wirral by-election, the Labour party was at pains to say that there would be no threat to grammar schools if a Labour Member were elected in the Wirral or, come to that, if a Labour Government were elected. During that by-election, the Labour party started to promote the idea that the future of a grammar school or group of grammar schools should be decided by a ballot of local parents.
In answer to the question, "How do you trigger a ballot under the provisions of Labour's proposal?" a briefing given to The Times in February 1997 said that there could be a ballot
only if a sufficient number of parents wanted a change".
The Timescontinued:
Although Mr. Blunkett declined to give a figure, Labour sources said, 'it will be a very high threshold—i.e. it won't happen'''.
Therefore, guidance issued by the Labour party before the general election was not consistent with the policy that the Secretary of State had espoused a year previously, and—more critically—that policy is not consistent with the policy that is embodied in the Bill.
We have before us a rushed series of proposals—so rushed that the Minister of State was unable to tell the Committee the details of the arrangements that will prevail for the conduct of ballots. He could not even answer the most basic question that must be asked about any ballot; he cannot tell us who will be able to vote in the balloting process.
10.15 pm
The Bill vests in the Secretary of State a power to introduce regulations establishing the terms on which a ballot will be held to determine either the future of selective arrangements in a whole local education authority area, or the selective arrangements that will


apply to the continued existence of a grammar school in an area where there are both grammar schools and other forms of school.
I shall discuss whole-area ballots first. The Minister's guidance to the Committee says that, if a local education authority currently operates a full, traditional selective system, there will be a ballot for the whole local education authority area, to determine the future of grammar schools in that area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, that policy does not deliver on the Government's commitment to allow the parents in an area to determine the continuance or otherwise of grammar school arrangements to meet the educational needs of their individual children. The area that my hon. Friend represents is large, and it is perfectly possible that parents looking to one grammar school might reach different conclusions from parents looking to a different grammar school; yet the Government led those people to believe that the matter would be determined by local parents.
The outline of the voting arrangements says that all my hon. Friend's constituents will be lumped into a single ballot, and that different groups of parents will have no opportunity to reach different conclusions—hence amendment No. 160, which my hon. Friend will seek to move later. That amendment would allow a group of parents who wanted a denomination-based grammar school for their children to hold a separate ballot, regarding a single grammar school or a group of grammar schools, to determine whether that school or those schools should have continued access to a selective system.
Our first argument against the grammar school provisions is that the arrangements for whole-area ballots do not deliver on the Government's pledge to allow parents of children at a school to determine whether that school continues to be selective.
The Government get into worse and worse trouble on the arrangements for ballots to determine the future of individual schools. According to my reading of the material that is currently available to us, the first and most obvious inequity is that the Government anticipate that parents of children at feeder schools will have a right to vote to determine the future of an existing grammar school whose future is not the subject of a whole-area ballot, but that parents whose children currently attend the school will have no vote to determine the future of the school in which their own children are being educated.
I look forward to hearing the argument that the Minister will use when confronted with parents who may have a child aged 11 in a school with 11-to-18 provision, and who have been told by this Government that the future of the school will be determined by a ballot of parents—not of the parents of that school, but of the parents of five-year-olds in feeder schools. The parents of that 11-year-old, who still has another seven years' education at the school, will not have the right to determine the future of the school in which their child is being educated.
What possible principle provides that the parents of a child who may never come anywhere near that school, because those parents may move away, have the right to vote in the ballot, but the parents of a child already in that school have no such right? That is nonsense.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Does that principle means that an old boy of the school—

Mr. Tom Levitt: Old boy?

Mr. Fallon: Or old girl. However, I am thinking of an old boy from the Judd school in Kent, who might well live in my constituency of Sevenoaks, who has a son aged two or three. That old boy may be a governor of the school and have already decided that he would like his son to follow him and attend that school. He will not be able to vote in the ballot.

Mr. Dorrell: It is worse than that. That old boy could have a child in the school and a younger child who is not yet in a feeder school, whom the father wants to attend his old school—which that child's sibling attends—yet he will have no right to vote in the ballot to determine that school's future. That is absurd—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is defending the Minister's proposal. I note that no other Labour Member has leapt up to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us the argument that he would use in the sort of case referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). Would the hon. Gentleman like to offer the Minister an answer to my hon. Friend's dilemma? I suspect that the Minister would be pleased to get one.
The answer is not obvious to me. What will happen when there is an old boy of the school, with a child already at the school and a child not yet in a primary feeder school? There are three specific links with the school, but no right to vote in the ballot to determine that school's future. The hon. Member for Workington is staying firmly rooted in his seat.

Mr. John Bercow: We would dearly love the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to spring to his feet. However, his credentials on this matter are clear. Only a few weeks ago he described grammar schools as infernal institutions. We know the bigotry that informs his position.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's use of language is just the right side of what is acceptable in the House of Commons, whereas the language used by the late Anthony Crosland was wildly offside.
The second example is of a grammar school with a number of different feeder schools. In some parts of the area, the primary provision covers the age range five to 11. In other parts, there is a division between infant and junior provision, with children changing primary schools at the age of seven or eight. Is the Minister seriously saying that the parents of a six-year-old in the separate infants school will not have a vote, but the parents of a six-year-old in the combined primary school will? Is that the principle that the Government want to defend? I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why the parents of one group of six-year-olds in a regular, established stream


would have a vote, while the parents of another group of six-year-olds coming into the grammar school through a different feeder stream would not have a vote.
We then come to perhaps the most absurd proposition of all. I am indebted for this example to the head teachers of two schools in Reading, the Kendrick school for girls and the Reading school for boys. Those are two selective grammar schools, one single-sex male and the other single-sex female. There are mixed feeder schools going into those schools. Is the future of Reading boys school to be decided not by parents of children in the school, but by parents who have daughters in feeder schools of Reading school for boys? The decision would be made by parents of children in the feeder schools who have no prospect of ever going to Reading boys' school, because that school makes a conscious policy decision to offer single-sex provision for boys.
The parents who have a vote in the election are parents of children in the feeder schools, but not the parents of the children in the school itself. The vote is accorded not to the parents of the children in the school, but to parents of girls in feeder schools who have no prospect of going to the school for boys. I look forward to hearing that principle explained by the Minister as well.

Mr. Fabricant: As confused as I am by the logic of the argument so far, I fail to understand whether there is any equity in it. However strange it may be that the feeder school parents can make a choice in the matter, will my right hon. Friend explain to me whether they will at least have the freedom to decide that the school to which their children will go from the feeder school can become a grammar school—or can they only stop it being a grammar school?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend clearly has long vision and the opportunity to look over my shoulder to see the next point that I was going to make. The Government sought to encourage the view that grammar schools were safe with them, and that there would be no threat to grammar schools' continuance, ethos or quality. One might almost say that the Government were elected on the undertaking that the grammar schools were safe in their hands.
The truth, as my hon. Friend rightly notes, is that a one-way ratchet is envisaged in the Bill—one vote once. If the vote goes against selection in a particular school, decades or perhaps centuries of high-quality education can be swept away on the basis of a single vote—[Interruption]—but the opportunity to establish a new grammar school on the basis of parental support is denied throughout the Bill.
Under the Bill as drafted, there is no prospect of any group of parents being able to commission a ballot in order to establish that the parents, teachers and local community in a particular area believe that the grammar school model offers the best future for their children. That is one of the issues to which I shall return.

Mr. Fallon: Did my right hon. Friend hear someone shout from the Government Benches, "What about grant-maintained schools?"? I remind my right hon. Friend that the Secretary of State retains the final decision

on grant-maintained schools. When Amherst school last summer decided to go for grant-maintained status by an overwhelming majority, the Secretary of State, in the person of the Minister of State, overruled the school. Five, six or seven hundred years of history can be wiped out by sudden death on a single ballot, and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Dorrell: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to make a different point—which is that, under the Bill, a grant-maintained school that was established on the basis of parental support in a ballot can be abolished without so much as a by your leave. There is certainly no question of seeking parents' support in a ballot to reverse that status.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outrageous state of affairs described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is compounded by the fact that destruction of a grammar school—a beacon of excellence in our system—can occur in a ballot with absolutely no minimum voter turnout requirement? Is that not an indication of how determined the Government are to skew ballots in one direction rather than another?

Mr. Dorrell: I think that my hon. Friend is right, but I have no means of knowing whether he is—and neither does the Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who seems very certain about these matters. Moreover, unless the Minister has cleared the draft regulations with the Whip, the Minister will know no better than I do what will be in the regulations when they are tabled.
It is yet another manifestation of the absurdity of our position today: we are being asked to debate and decide a system dealing with the future of 163 grammar schools in England on the basis that the Secretary of State will produce the rules after the House has debated the principles and the Bill is done and dusted. Therefore, the answer to my hon Friend's question is that, although I think he is right, no one in the House really knows the answer.

Mr. Robert Key: Did Ministers give any hints in Committee about how petitions for ballots would work? Like the heads and chairmen of governors of the two grammar schools in my constituency, did my right hon. Friend get the impression that, whereas a ballot might mean the end of the argument—one way or the other—for five years, a parent or group of parents could petition at any time and without any limit? Even if a ballot were held in response to a petition, parents could petition again the day after the ballot, creating instability for years to come.

Mr. Dorrell: Once again, I must say that I do not know for certain the answer to the question, because I have not seen the regulations. However, the indications that we have had from the Government are exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. Ministers seem to accept that, if a school wins a ballot to retain its grammar school status, the issue should be closed for five years. However, I do not think that five years is long enough. In Committee, we moved an amendment that made the point that an 11-to-18


grammar school will educate children for seven years. Therefore, although an unsuccessful ballot may be held in the first year of a child's education in that school, the school's future may again be open to question before the end of that child's education. Therefore, the five-year bar on re-balloting is not long enough.
My hon. Friend is right to say that, if an unsuccessful attempt is made to petition for a ballot, there will be no bar—none has yet been suggested by Ministers—on the right of any individual to launch a new petition and attempt to change a school's status. He is also right to say that, although a school will have a period of grace after its future has been decided in a ballot, a school that does not hold a ballot will be continuously subject to the type of threat that he described.

Mr. John Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend concede that, on all those matters, the Bill seems directly to contradict the Labour party's policies on grant-maintained schools? When the issues of balloting grant-maintained schools were debated during and after passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, it was never suggested that the type of arrangements proposed in this Bill should be imposed on grant-maintained schools. Now, such arrangements are being foisted on grammar schools. Does it not show enormous hypocrisy in the Labour party?

Mr. Dorrell: I agree entirely. The Government have told grant-maintained schools that the Secretary of State will sign away their grant-maintained status at a stroke of the pen. I emphasise that a grant-maintained school is grant-maintained only because a majority of parents voted for that status in a ballot. The Secretary of State is taking the power in the Bill to reverse the effect of that ballot, without any suggestion that a ballot should be necessary to support his decision.
I suppose that it is at least a small mercy that a requirement for a ballot is being written into the Bill for grammar schools—although, as I sought to argue, on the basis of the information available to the House, the requirements that have in fact been written into the Bill are wholly unsatisfactory, and some of their effects verge on the absurd.
Given the range of inadequacies in the Bill and in the undertakings that the Government have given about the operation of ballots under it, had we tabled amendments to deal with them all and then encouraged the House to vote on them, we would have been here all night. Therefore, I tabled amendments to deal with the two most important failings of the balloting arrangements as they affect individual schools.
The first of those failings is the proposition that parents of children at an existing grammar school should have no vote to determine the future of that school. That is patently absurd. Amendment No. 179 provides that the parents of children at an existing grammar school should have a vote in a ballot to determine that school's future.
The second most important failing is dealt with by amendment No. 177. Instead of the grammar school principle being a closed list, schools should have the opportunity to seek the support of groups of parents to establish themselves as new grammar schools. That amendment is the most difficult for the Government to argue against.
The Government must believe that grammar schools ought to have a continued place in the school system. It may be unfashionable and awkward for the Minister's Back-Bench supporters that that is the Government's position, but it is what the Bill outlines. If the Government really believe that grammar schools are wrong, they now have the opportunity to abolish them. Presumably they do not believe that grammar schools are damaging to the public interest, because they are passing up the opportunity to do anything about them.
The Government have to explain why a school that is delivering a high-quality service and which they are content should continue to do so, in conjunction with the schools around it, should not be used as a model by parents in other parts of the country to establish similar successful schools to serve their needs and those of their community. The effect of the Bill is to establish a closed paddock: "If you're in there, that's fine. If not, too bad." The ladder is being pulled up. This type of school might work well for some, but the experience and proven track record of a grammar school in one area, serving the needs of certain groups of people, can never be used to offer the same opportunities elsewhere.
The Government claim that they are inclusive and that they promote opportunity and excellence in education. For such a Government to argue that grammar schools should be available to some but not extended to others who may want them and who could benefit from them is absurd.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend think it ironic that the Minister without Portfolio can use all his venom to accuse the BBC of dumbing down, when he is a member of a Government who want to dumb down centres of excellence in this country?

Mr. Dorrell: I agree. If there is a theme that has run through the Government's schools policy ever since their election, it is their persistent vendetta against established centres of excellence.
I do not doubt the desire of the Minister of State to establish and promote high quality where he can do so, and when we have discussed other parts of the Bill, I have welcomed and encouraged his proposals for education action zones in so far as they provide opportunities to develop new ideas for the provision of schools. The problem that the Minister and his party have in spades, however, is that, whenever an existing, proven track record of success has been achieved under the assisted places scheme, by grammar schools or by grant-maintained schools, the Government's approach has been to sweep those schools away.
The Minister likes to say how important it is to promote high quality where it does not currently exist. No one disagrees with him about that, but he would be a great deal more persuasive if he did not consistently argue against the continued existence of institutions with a proven track record of success.

Mr. David Curry: At the end of the last debate, the Minister said that we needed to take the discussion forward, and accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) of tabling amendments that looked back. I suggest that the proposals in the Bill look back.
I believe that the issue in education should no longer be about structure—that it should now be about performance. I think that many schools that look forward,


seek a new agenda and are concerned about performance, will be thrust back into an old argument from which neither they nor pupils will benefit. That is particularly true in my constituency. Inevitably, many of us will wish to speak about constituency cases.
I have mentioned this case to the Minister before, and I pay tribute to his understanding. I believe that he is genuinely anxious to improve the quality of education. As he will know, my constituency—which contains the only three selective schools in North Yorkshire—has what might almost be described as a poisonous history. That certainly applies to the Ripon side. We are trying to turn our backs on the old argument, and look forward to creating different but equal centres of excellence in the spirit of diversity.
Ripon contains a long-standing grammar school of which I was head boy. In fact, I think I still hold the hundred yards record—largely because the boys now run a hundred metres. Across the road is Ripon city school, a secondary modern where my father taught. For many years there was open or covert warfare between the two schools. There is now a new headmaster at the city school, who has decided that he wants to turn his back on that old argument. He is seeking technology status for the school: he wants a centre of excellence that is different. He wants to focus on technological subjects.
When I sent him a copy of the Minister's letter outlining his proposals, Paul Lowery, the headmaster of the school—a city school; the school that might be deemed to have the greatest stake in change in Ripon—concluded his own letter by saying:
we remain committed to the view that it would be divisive and inappropriate in Ripon"—
reorganisation, that is—
and would certainly not contribute to the important issue of raising standards!
I must give a full report of the letter. The headmaster also said that he felt that secondary modern schools had become the overlooked element of the education system. I have reported the letter faithfully.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is he in favour of grammar schools?

Mr. Curry: The headmaster has said that he does not believe in reorganisation in Ripon. Ripon contains a grammar school and a secondary modern, and the nearest comprehensive is in Boroughbridge. I have therefore replied accurately to the hon. Gentleman.
The situation in Skipton is somewhat different. There are twin schools: a high school for girls and Ermysted's grammar school for boys. They are radically different. Ermysted's is aided; it owns its property; it has a foundation.
I have explained to the Minister the importance of the headmaster in Ripon seeking technology status in turning the school towards a new agenda, with a very clear unique selling point, to use the modern jargon. If the threat of reorganisation is to hang over that school, it can wave goodbye to the idea of technology status. Nobody would give a particular status to a school where the constitution is likely to change.
How far does a ballot go in Skipton? Does it extend to the feeder schools to both secondary schools? Does it extend right up the dale to the people who are affected? Where are the limits? That is important. There is a single grammar school in Ripon. One could imagine the Minister saying that the ballot applied to its feeder schools, of which there are 32 or 33. Some send one child a year—or perhaps one child every other year—to the grammar school.
10.45 pm
There are 16 or 17 feeder schools for Skipton high school, many of which are out of the area. People flee from the Keighley area, in Bradford metropolitan borough council, to North Yorkshire for their education—about which nobody can really complain. Is it conceivable that Ripon grammar school would go comprehensive, to leave the two schools in Skipton? Is it conceivable that the two schools in Skipton would go comprehensive, to leave Ripon grammar the sole selective school in North Yorkshire? Does the Minister accept that, in practice, it is all or nothing for those schools—and accept equally the schools' different constitutions, which create a problem for him?
Who ballots? I accept that the Minister has not made up his mind. I accept that his letter set out a series of hypotheses. My speech is to encourage him to look hard at those hypotheses. Ripon grammar has 32 or 33 feeder schools. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood said, under the Bill, the parent of a child in the first form of a primary school would have a vote, but the parent of a child in the first form of the grammar school, who expected their child to attend that school for six more years, would not have a vote. There is a question of natural justice.
We must ask a further question: if the vote is extended to the grammar school, would it be extended to the other secondary schools in the area? I realise that that is a problem with which the Minister must grapple. I suspect that he wishes that it would go away. That is one element I share with him. The agenda must look forward. The proposals look backwards. We would both like to eliminate the backward-looking agenda.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Coming from the city of Lancaster, I have some understanding of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In arguing for the status quo, he is surely undermining the case of his right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that parents should be able positively to ballot in favour of grammar schools.

Mr. Curry: If it is a postulate of the Government that people should be able to change a school from a grammar school to a comprehensive school, and if the Government believe that we should have a diversity of education, it must be intellectually consistent to argue that parents should also be able to ballot to return to grammar school status. I do not think that that would happen often. I said in my very first sentence that we should look towards performance and not form in education.
I do not think that my party's campaign for a grammar school in every town made a great deal of sense. I did not think that the Labour party's views on grammar schools, which kept changing with every blow of the wind, made a


great deal of sense; nobody knew where it stood. Sensible people on both sides of the argument wanted to bring it to an end. We wanted to look towards performance and delivery.
In the modern world, public services are increasingly asked to demonstrate that they can justify the funding spent on them. That is right; I have no quarrel with that.
A ballot must be requested by 20 per cent. of parents—but over how long? Will the list be open for a month or a year? We know what will happen; people will persuade others to sign for a ballot on the grounds that they are not voting to change the school, but merely voting for a debate. It is a bit like Members of Parliament being asked to sign early-day motions—nothing will happen; it is just an expression of opinion. Before we know where we are, ballots will be triggered.

Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. Does he agree that, if the period in which signatures can be collected is not limited, we will be in danger of creating a charter for militant political activists—for what Harold Wilson described, in a different context, as a small and tightly knit group of politically motivated men?

Mr. Curry: We are in danger of creating an almost permanent situation similar to that on the board of Newcastle United over the past few days. Such uncertainty would be to everyone's disadvantage. How long will the petition be valid? If there is no time scale, the five-year gap between ballots does not mean much, because people can collect signatures in the meantime.

Mr. Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for it to be possible for a petition to roll over to a subsequent year, given that the parents who had signed it may not be part of the eventual electorate?

Mr. Curry: I absolutely agree. Someone who had signed a petition in the initial stages might no longer be eligible to vote by the time of the ballot.
How will campaigns be funded? Rightly, local education authorities are to have no say. Governors are also apparently to have no say. However, I am worried that organisations such as the National Union of Teachers will throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at the campaign to comprehensivise British education.
I should like the Government to issue regulations. They should at least have a view on the funding of campaigns. The Freedom Association, or some similar organisation, will come in on the other side. Before we know where we are, megabucks will be thrown at the campaign. In the ideological battle, people will forget that kids' future is at stake. Opinion in small towns will be polarised, and a divisive bitterness will re-emerge in communities.
If a ballot results in a vote for reorganisation, who will pay for it? The reorganised schools would not use the same buildings in Ripon or Skipton. Where would funding come from for the necessary major physical reorganisation?
I accept that the Minister probably wishes that he did not have to bring the proposals forward. They are the tail end of the old policy. The Government would—rightly—prefer to address a more forward-looking agenda. In many respects they have done so. I support that. Arguments

about structures are out of date. We have tried to move the agenda to what happens in schools. How do we improve performance? How do we judge performance? How do we ensure value for money? How do we know that people are getting what they are paying for in education? How are their natural aspirations being achieved?
In the many small towns that still have grammar schools, I foresee a sustained period of bitterness and polarisation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: So you assume you will lose.

Mr. Curry: I do not assume that. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. More importantly, Members should not intervene from a sedentary position, and Members who are on their feet should not respond to them.

Mr. Curry: I regret that my natural courtesy overcame protocol.
We need to move the agenda forward. Grammar schools still exist. If they were continuing to fire the old salvos across the road at the secondary moderns, I should not leap to their defence. I do not leap to their defence on ideological grounds. Frankly, if anyone could not run an effective education system in the socio-economic conditions of north Yorkshire, my advice would be, "Give up." That is true of Kent and Sussex too, and of large parts of Essex.
I do not believe that comprehensive education would be a catastrophe in North Yorkshire. Heavens above, we have good enough conditions there for it to work. I am asking, "Is it worth the candle?" Do we really want to go back to that argument, or should we look forward to a different agenda in which, most importantly, the secondary modern schools will be able to find a new role in the world?
It is a great mistake to assume that the debate is about grammar schools alone. It is also about the other schools, and about giving secondary moderns a chance to find a new vocation—if I may use a Gallic word that I hope my hon. Friends will not misinterpret—so that they can carve a valid, different, high-quality place for themselves in the education world. If we can do that, we can put the old arguments behind us.

Mr. Dawson: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the debate being not only about grammar schools but about the other schools too, but if the system that he describes is so good, would it not be a mark of confidence in that system to hold a ballot? Would not the system be validated by a ballot?

Mr. Curry: That may be so, but we know precious little about the details of the ballots or about who would be able to vote. The evidence is circumstantial; we know little about the time scale, and little about the funding. We need precision to be able to come to the judgment that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Labour Members have been the masters of the art of looking to focus groups? If the


Government wanted to go and find focus groups to register approval or disapproval of the grammar school system, they would have no difficulty in finding them in my constituency in south Buckinghamshire, and I know what the answer would be.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is confident about the outcome of a ballot. I do not make a judgment about that, because my argument is not about whether grammar schools are a "good thing" or a "bad thing". I am simply arguing that the measures before the House would lead to a period of uncertainty, and certainly to a period of division and argument. Above all, they would force the schools concerned to turn their backs on the progress that they are now making towards more extensive co-operation and the creation of a separate identity that works, and that delivers diversity of education, based on excellence in each case.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that some of the children who live in my constituency go to a school in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), which, far from being a grammar school, managed through a parental ballot to become grant-maintained, and this year is aiming to send at least two of its children to Oxford or Cambridge.

Mr. Curry: I look forward to the time when the city school in Ripon has a graduates club, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now far away from the amendments, and I should be grateful if he would return to them.

Mr. Curry: The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that one should not get locked into a particular mindset about what a grammar school can do and what a comprehensive or a secondary modern school can do. If people set their minds on developing those schools instead, they can achieve remarkable things—but they have to begin by putting the old arguments aside. In Ripon and Skipton, we are doing that.
The Bill would drag back those old arguments remorselessly out of the past, and that is wrong. I believe that we need an agenda that looks towards performance and delivery. I believe that the Minister, whom I respect considerably, wishes to do that too. I wish to help him, so I hope that, when he finalises the provisions in the Bill, he will bear those points in mind and look resolutely forward towards how we are to deliver education in the future—in diversity, but with excellence—rather than back towards old arguments that were destructive in the past, and will simply prolong that destruction into the future.

11 pm

Miss Widdecombe: I wish to address amendment No. 165, standing in my name, dealing with the gagging clause that the Government have seen fit to insert in the Bill, which prevents a grammar school or its governing body from campaigning or proselytising during the period of a ballot. It is odd that we will have a vote which may not be preceded by a debate among those most concerned

in the outcome. Not only do we not know the rules that will govern the ballot, but the most interested parties—the ones whose voices need to be heard locally—will not be allowed to campaign during the ballot.
In my constituency, there are five grammar schools, and they will not be able to state the case for their own continuation. The Conservative county council—which wishes to continue with grammar schools—will likewise not be allowed to put its case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, there is nothing to stop any organisation from arguing general principles nationally, but there will not be that opportunity locally—because, under the Bill, there may not be a proper debate.
When this matter was raised in Committee, the Minister's response was that the Government did not want public money used to promote large-scale campaigns during a ballot. That is perfectly fair. All my amendment does is to put that in the Bill. At the moment, the Bill says that bodies concerned "shall not" publish any material, give any financial aid or otherwise campaign. I am simply proposing to add three little words to "shall not"—"at public expense". That leaves heads, governing bodies, parent-teacher associations and anybody who has an interest in the outcome of the ballot free to make the arguments known.
The parents, teachers, heads and governing bodies of Kent would have been offended by the mirth that has been exhibited by Labour Members this evening in discussing something of major importance to them and to the future of their children.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).

Mr. Rowe: I am flattered that my right hon. Friend has prioritised me. If I understand her correctly, she is suggesting that if, for example, a school's governing body wanted to have some influence on the debate, it should resign en bloc from its position as the governing body. It would then be entirely free to campaign. This seems to be nonsense. I have no doubt that people listening to the arguments that the body puts forward would rather know that it is associated with the school than finding that it is, in some curious way, forced to conceal it.

Miss Widdecombe: That is not what I am suggesting, but it is the only possible reaction to the situation that the Government have created in the Bill. People will look for ways around the measure. My amendment is straightforward, and I am amazed that the Minister is not embracing it. Apparently it deals with his objection, which is the use of public money.

Mrs. Browning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, we referred to the amount of publicity that trade unions could produce in such a ballot? The Minister said that they were external bodies, and nothing to do with him. Experience of grant-maintained schools, however, has taught us that they would have considerable influence, given their resources. The bodies to which my right hon.


Friend is referring would have no power against a body such as a trade union unless the Bill contained the powers as she is defining them.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right, and she does well to remind the House of that exchange in Committee, and the deductions that can be made from it.
I tabled the amendment at the direct request of the head of one of my grammar schools, with the support of other heads of grammar schools. They were severely concerned that there would be a vote but that there would be no input in the debate from the grammar schools.

Mr. Damian Green: Is my right hon. Friend aware that parents as well as heads and governing bodies want to take part in the ballots? That is shown by the fact that, next year, both the grammar schools in my constituency—Highworth school for girls and the Norton Knatchbull school for boys—will have to impose a further entry condition because of their popularity among a wider and wider range of parents in and around Ashford.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. I heard sedentary comments—to which, of course, I should not respond—asking whether I was afraid of the outcome of the ballot. I refer hon. Members to what happened when a BBC crew conducted a vox pop in the streets of Maidstone on the continuation of grammar schools—the response was 100 per cent. in favour. Interestingly, the crew did not approach people who looked as if they had children who were currently at the grammar schools; it approached those with tiny children—people who certainly did not look as though they had had a grammar school education. Nevertheless, 100 per cent. wanted to keep the grammar schools.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Now, of course, I shall certainly give way.

Mr. Fallon: Last, and quite clearly least.
On that point, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, by definition, some of the people who were interviewed would have voted for the Labour party at the general election? Likewise, some of the people who will be disfranchised at those schools will be members of the Labour party. Will she comment on the absence of support for Labour's proposal from Labour Members who represent Kent?

Miss Widdecombe: That is a telling point. I must tell my hon. Friend that I chose my two other hon. Friends before him purely on a geographical basis—confronted with an embarrassment of riches, I had to find some way in which to select, so I chose on a distance criterion. He is, of course, right—both Labour and Liberal supporters wanted to maintain the grammar schools.

Mr. Dawson: If the schools are as popular across the political spectrum as the right hon. Lady says, what on earth is she worried about?

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention in class, he would have heard me say that

I was not worried about the outcome in Kent. That does not mean that I want a silly, unfair system in which there is no reasonable debate before the ballot, and in which major national bodies—trade unions and others—can wage a campaign in Kent, whereas the grammar schools will be gagged. The clause is a gagging measure.
The Labour Government have let down the people of Kent. During the general election, I was repeatedly told by people who claimed to be Labour supporters, and whom I had no reason to disbelieve, "It's all right. They won't do anything to the grammar schools when they get in—the grammar schools are safe with them." I reckon that many parents in Kent now bitterly rue the way they voted in the election.

Mr. Brady: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that she appreciates the fact that I am helpfully intervening in strict geographical order.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made a telling point, on which I should be interested to hear him expand. If he believes that comprehensive schools are so popular, I presume that he will support amendment No. 177, which would give parents of children in those schools the chance to vote on whether the comprehensive system should be maintained.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, my hon. Friend puts an unarguable proposition to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the right hon. Lady explain how she can tell whether someone has been to a grammar school?

Miss Widdecombe: I could not tell, but the BBC crew reckoned they could, so the hon. Gentleman had better put the question to them.
The BBC crew made a point of approaching a range of people of different ages—people who looked as though they might have children at secondary school or at primary school, and people who looked as though they came from a range of professions and occupations—and 100 per cent., from all political persuasions, wanted to keep grammar schools.
That view will be reflected in future votes in Kent. Where are the Kent Labour Members? What are they saying on behalf of the parents who want to keep grammar schools in Kent? We have heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) often shouts out interventions, but their constituencies are a long way from Kent. Where are the Labour Members from Kent?

Mr. Rowe: Kent has more grammar schools than any other county, and a proud record of fighting to defend their right to remain as grammar schools. That battle, which had to be fought not only against Labour but, sadly, against the Conservative Government, was fought successfully.
We strongly believe that we have nothing to fear from a ballot. In many respects, the nature of the ballot that is imposed on us does not matter much. It is perfectly clear that the Labour Government have absolutely no idea what sort of ballot they ought to run. They are full of internal contradictions and paradoxes, and they will not find it


possible to run a credible ballot on the lines that have so far been suggested. Kent is ready to go along with whatever ballot they decide on.
In any debate about selective education, it is never suggested that the schools that have selection are inferior; the suggestion is always that they somehow have an unfair advantage over other schools, the removal of which is the purpose of all the activity. In a country that is desperate to raise its educational standards, with a Government who have declared that their first, second and third priorities are education, education and education, there is something strange about persistently assaulting a form of education about whose standards there is no complaint.
We must find ways of raising standards in other schools to equal those in grammar schools. By becoming grant-maintained, some schools in Kent have broken free of any suggestion that they are less successful than the grammar schools, and have achieved standards of equal quality. It is a tragedy that, when the grant-maintained system was working so well, it was instantly subjected to attack.

Miss Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that Cornwallis school—one of the first to go grant-maintained in my constituency and one that also serves people from his constituency—now has a high rate of university entrance and is looking forward to its first Oxbridge entrants?

Mr. Rowe: I entirely agree; that was the point that I made earlier. That was the school that I had in mind, but there are others.
Obviously, what is frustrating about this debate is that, although the Labour Government appear to be concentrating on a backward-looking assault on a proven system of education—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a debate not about the relative merits of schools or educational systems, but about a certain group of amendments, and he is very wide of the mark. Will he please return to the amendments that are before the House?

Mr. Rowe: Basically, I am speaking in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), because I believe, as she does, that there is something inherently absurd in debarring the people who know most about the system from taking any active part in informing the public of the merits of system in which they operate. As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend, the proposition that, to take part in the public debate, governing bodies have to resign from being governing bodies and conceal from the public their close connections with the schools that they are attempting to promote is nonsense. It should be written out of the Bill.
The amendment is entirely apropos the argument and it should be supported. I hope to hear that the Minister accepts that argument.

Mr. Brady: I am pleased to support the amendments on grammar schools that stand in my name and that of

my right hon. and hon. Friends. As hon. Members who served with me in Committee are well aware, it is with great pride and pleasure that I not only defend the excellent grammar and secondary modern schools in my constituency, but go a little further than one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends and recommend that the grammar school system be available to parents throughout the country. That is why I wish to speak in particular to amendment No. 177, which would give parents in areas that do not have the benefit of grammar schools the facility to enjoy those benefits if they wish.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) mentioned the changes in the position of the Labour party, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). One unfortunate aspect is that we seem to be in between the position held by very old Labour, when Sidney Webb and R. H. Tawney supported grammar schools because they believed that they gave opportunities for advancement to people from ordinary backgrounds—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I told the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He should now speak directly to the amendments.

Mr. Brady: I was trying to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that education system must be available to parents whether they are in areas that have grammar schools or not. In fact, there has always been a wide spread of opinion on both sides of the House and support in the Labour movement and on the Conservative Benches for that proposition.
I shall certainly try to refer specifically to the amendments as you request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is essential for parents who do not have the option of a selective education system to be able to look to areas such as mine in the borough of Trafford and those represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Kent and Buckinghamshire that have the benefit of that system.
It is utterly unacceptable for the Government to include provisions in the Bill, which they claim are there to give choice and rights to ordinary people and local parents to decide, when they are not prepared to be even-handed. They are not prepared to allow a ballot to institute new grammar schools where parents wish. They are prepared only to have the one-way ratchet which, they hope, will lead to the end of the grammar schools. It must not be a one-way door. If there is to be fairness, choice, an element of local democracy and decision making and a balloting procedure, it is fundamental that the system operates in both directions.
I return to the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) believes that, if we are confident of the popularity of the grammar schools in our constituencies, we should be happy with the balloting arrangements. He cannot argue that we should be comfortable with the balloting arrangement, however


structured, when Labour Members are not prepared to accept the same proposition for the system of education that they seem to prefer. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. General conversation appears to be breaking out. I should be grateful if hon. Members would listen to the hon. Gentleman who is speaking.

Mr. Brady: I look forward to some meaningful and intelligent interventions from Labour Members, if they can refrain from the juvenile gestures that they are making. They must explain why they are not prepared to allow parents across the country the choice of looking at the success of the grammar school selective education system, and deciding that it patently works and should be replicated in their areas. The results of the system in the borough of Trafford, which has the best A-level results in the country, or in Buckinghamshire, which has the best GCSE results in the country, show the quality of selective education. Parents should be free to consider that and to decide that they want that education to be available for their children, and not just in those few areas fortunate enough to preserve grammar schools.
If the Government accepted the amendment, it would have the important effect of demonstrating the good faith of the pledge that they made before the Wirral, South by-election and of subsequent occasional comments on the subject. It would remove the thread of hostility to grammar schools that runs through not only the Bill but nearly everything that Labour Members say on the matter. The amendment would allow access to the excellent academic results that selective education can give.

Mr. Levitt: Why would parents vote for a selective system in which four out of five would not qualify because of the process of selection, which classifies four out of five children as failures, and which makes its education, however excellent, accessible to only a small minority?

Mr. Brady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing on my next point and, in a sense, underlining it.
Different selective systems involve different percentages. That is not a particularly relevant concern. If the hon. Gentleman believes that parents will not vote for the selective system because they do not believe that all children will go to grammar schools, he must explain why it is not reasonable to allow other parents the same balloting procedure. The hon. Gentleman is confident that they would not wish to take that option up, but if he is so confident, why will Labour not allow parents that choice? He says that parents will not accept it, but I think that they may in certain circumstances.
The reason for that is clear from a selective system that works and has developed over the years as it should have. I speak from strong personal experience, although I admit with some shame that I was only deputy head boy of Altrincham grammar school. With a system that works to the advantage of all local children, not only through excellent grammar schools but through excellent secondary moderns across my constituency, we can see the result of a system that has been developed as it should have been.
I have accepted throughout this debate and in Committee that flaws in the implementation of the system arose from the Education Act 1944. Those parts of the

Act, those pillars of the tertiary system, that were not properly resourced and put in place should be encouraged and built up. It should be a case not of using a skewed balloting arrangement to level down and to remove quality and excellence where it exists but of allowing all the schools to rise to the same standards.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: In Kent, 50 or 60 per cent. of children in many secondary schools have special needs. How will schools right across the board rise to the level of the grammar schools, which cream off the top 30 per cent?

Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman makes a rather tendentious point. I do not argue that all schools will achieve the same A-level results or the same type of highly academic education, or that the output—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Gentleman again, but will he now return from general debate to the amendment?

Mr. Brady: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to deal directly with the point put to me by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). I should have been delighted to do that, but I accept your strictures and will move on. [Interruption.] In an English school, as well.
The critical point is that selection by ability is not only about creating grammar schools. It is about providing the best form of education for each type of child, each type of educational ability—dare I say it, each aptitude. Perhaps I should use those words interchangeably.
The quality of the results from secondary modern schools in my constituency, such as Ashton on Mersey school—which has received two outstanding awards from Ofsted and two charter mark awards, has now been made a sports college and is achieving better academic results than most comprehensive schools—demonstrates the value of a good selective system. I have the greatest pleasure, therefore, in supporting the amendment to promote the choice of parents in areas where there are no grammar schools. I also support the other amendments in this group.
Some critical effects must be understood in looking at the balloting arrangement. The proposal for LEA-wide ballots runs through the structure of the outline procedure on balloting and through the provisions in the Bill, and certainly impacts on my local schools. The justification for such ballots is supposedly that the future of one school is intimately bound up with the future of other schools. That has a critical relationship with the importance of being able to create new grammar schools in particular areas and particular circumstances.
There may already be an imbalance, especially in areas that do not already have fully selective education systems, but have some grammar schools. There may be an imbalance if there is just one grammar school, or an imbalance in single-sex provision by grammar schools. To take the example of Altrincham, there may be different denominational grammar schools. In those instances, it is essential that there is a procedure whereby education provision can be evened out and a new grammar school put in place to ensure proper and fair provision between sexes and denominations, or to ensure that there are sufficient places.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford made a point about the percentages of children in different schools. The decision may be taken, or parents may take the view, that it is appropriate to have a greater percentage going into grammar schools, in which case it would be appropriate for them to vote in a ballot to increase grammar school provision in their area.
We must not forget that, if grammar schools are voted out of existence through the balloting process as it stands—a one-way door, a ratchet—we shall see not only grammar school status disappearing, but mergers and the restructuring of education systems in large parts of the country. That will create imbalances that can be evened out only by the provision of new grammar schools in areas where parents want them.
It is tragic that the Government have sought to avoid responsibility on this issue. Ordinarily, I should be happy to support the idea that a decision of this sort should be taken locally, by a ballot if that is the appropriate means of doing it; but I fear that underlying the Government's attitude toward our arguments and to the amendment that would extend ballots and choice to other parents is an unfortunate state of affairs whereby Ministers are trying to avoid responsibility. The Government are trying to farm the issue out to local ballots because they do not want to take responsibility as a Government or even as a party at local authority level.
I see my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), sitting opposite; she will know well the constant battle over grammar schools in the borough of Trafford over the years. The Government are keen to remove the whole issue from the normal political arena precisely because of the popularity of grammar schools. It is most reprehensible of the Government to refuse to accept that all parents should have the same rights to vote in ballots. They refuse to accept responsibility and are farming the issue out to a skewed balloting arrangement in the clear hope and with the clear intention that, over time, grammar schools will be gradually chipped away.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government want to sustain their claim that they are not hostile in principle to the continued existence of grammar schools, the best way in which they could prove their case would be to provide in the Bill for a minimum turnout requirement in the ballots?

Mr. Brady: I should be happy to have a minimum turnout requirement. However, I suspect that, for once, I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I think that the best way for the Government to demonstrate their good faith would be for them to accept the amendment. Doing so would clearly demonstrate that they believe in the principle of local decision making, that all parents should have an equal right to make decisions of that sort and that all parents should have a choice. It is most unfortunate that the Government do not accept that argument.
If the Government seek to defeat the amendment, as I fear they might, they will be putting their cards on the table and making it clear to the British people—especially those in constituencies where grammar schools exist,

or those in nearby constituencies—that the Government harbour the same hostility toward grammar schools as Labour Back Benchers. In some ways, I should welcome a more honest and open approach from the Government than the weasel words which we have heard so far. In opposition, the Labour party says one thing when a by-election is pending; in office, it does another. That is most unacceptable.
Amendment No. 179 would be a crucial improvement to the Bill. It would tidy up the anomaly whereby in those areas where there are only some grammar schools and not a wholly selective system parents of children currently attending grammar schools are not able to vote in the ballot. That is utterly unacceptable to the parents of such children—they have a clear and direct interest in those schools. The words that the Government employ in their outline of the balloting procedures are clear: they say that the objective of the procedure is to give the choice and decision on the future of those grammar schools to those parents who have a direct interest in the future of those schools. However, the Government are still not prepared to allow those with the clearest possible direct interest—parents of children attending those schools—a vote on the future of those schools.
Amendment No. 179 would remove an anomaly. It would create fairness and it would be seen to be fair. The Government should recognise that there would be some clear benefit in that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood referred to a letter from the heads of the Reading and Kendrick schools. They draw attention to several serious anomalies and unfairnesses in the proposed balloting arrangements, and it would be constructive to consider one or two of them. The heads of the Reading and Kendrick schools say:
If feeder schools are Junior rather than Junior Mixed and Infant, this means in some ballots Years R/1/2 parents will have votes, in others they will not. The right to vote will be determined by the detail of primary organisation. This is demonstrably both inconsistent and unfair. A common provision is needed.
They also make clear the fact that the Reading and Kendrick schools have received children from more than 150 feeder schools during the past few years.
All those arguments point clearly to a balloting arrangement that is ill thought out and patently unfair, and which will not be well received in those parts of the country that are still pleased, proud and fortunate to retain grammar schools and selective education.
Finally, I shall discuss amendment—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I said that I had reached the final amendment that I would discuss; I did not give any hint about the detail in which I would discuss it. It is amendment No. 160, which is especially important to parents in my constituency.
It is vital to enshrine in the Bill provisions to ensure fairness in the balloting procedures, not just for the normal maintained county grammar schools, some of which are to be found in my constituency, but for the denominational grammar schools in my constituency.
There are two Roman Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. Under the Government's outline proposals on the balloting arrangements, the future of those schools will be decided not by the parents of children attending those schools, or by Catholic parents in my constituency, or even by Catholic parents throughout the borough of


Trafford; their future will be decided in a single ballot, which will apply to Catholic schools and to non-Catholic schools. The Government's approach shows no consideration for the position of Catholic parents in my constituency, or in the borough of Trafford.
Amendment No. 160, which would allow the Government to take separately balloting arrangements on denominational grammar schools, has a vital purpose in restoring some fairness and balance to the Government's proposals. It would give Catholic parents the decision on the future of Catholic schools.
I suspect that such a position arises in very few parts of the country. Altrincham and Sale, West may be the only constituency in which there are two Roman Catholic grammar schools. Therefore, it is especially important—[Interruption.] I know that the hour is late, but the Secretary of State has had plenty of time out of the Chamber, and he could have had a strong cup of coffee to sustain him through this time. It is very unfortunate that he should yawn volubly during discussion of a crucial matter for the future of Catholic schools in my constituency. That is clear evidence of the trivial approach that he and his colleagues have taken to the future of denominational schools.

Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House, in words of one syllable, how allowing children into a Catholic secondary school without an 11-plus threatens the school, the pupils or the ethos of the Catholic religion that they seek to obtain? Will he withdraw his remark, on the ground that he is seeking to frighten people into believing that selection is essential to keep the school open or to continue to have Catholic education available to those children?

Mr. Brady: I am pleased that I now have the close attention of the Secretary of State. I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks, because they represent the views of parents, as expressed to me when visiting the Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. It is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman bats aside such serious and legitimate concerns.

Mr. Byers: I have a simple question: does the amendment have the support of the Church education authorities—yes or no?

Mr. Brady: The amendment has the support of the Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. The Minister should accept that it is my responsibility to represent the interests of my constituents, and I shall do so.

Mrs. Browning: Having visited the Catholic grammar schools in my hon. Friend's constituency just two weeks ago, I am concerned to hear that Ministers believe that parental preference and the views of teaching staff are secondary in the way in which the Government assess what they would call fair and just. When the Government took office, we heard, "Fairness and justice; fairness and justice; fairness and justice." There is nothing fair and just

about ignoring the sincere and firmly held views of parents and staff. Does my hon. Friend think that, when the Labour party prays in aid—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an excessively long intervention.

Mr. Brady: I thank hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her intervention. Not only is there nothing fair and just about the way in which the Government are approaching the matter; it is not consistent with the principles that they have previously stated. Once again, the Government are failing to take into account their stated principle that the parents with a direct interest in the future of a school should decide the future of that school.
This is another clear instance of the Secretary of State—who is now indulging in ribald laughter instead of taking the point seriously—giving the right to vote in the ballot and make a decision not just to the parents with a direct interest in the future of the Catholic grammar schools, but to all the parents in the borough of Trafford. That is a clear breach of the principle that the Government have previously stated.

Mr. Levitt: If the only Catholic school in an area is a selective school, and a Catholic parent wishes to send his child to that Catholic school but the child fails the selection process, what choice is there for that child to attend a Catholic school? None at all.

Mr. Brady: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to mention another of my excellent local schools—the Blessed Thomas Holford school, which is a fine Catholic secondary modern. Currently, if children do not get into the Catholic grammar schools, they have the option to go to the Catholic secondary school, which achieves results rather better than most comprehensive schools. It is another clear example of how a selective education system works, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not want me to pursue that point further.
On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), I can say only that I am pleased to have a variety of Roman Catholic schools in my constituency—[Interruption.] The Government proposal will limit choice, certainly for my constituents. That is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is looking puzzled, so I shall explain why. This might be relevant to the point raised by the Secretary of State, who has again disappeared from the Chamber.
The two Catholic grammar schools in my constituency were independent until last year. They were so impressed by grant-maintained status that they chose to opt into the state system so that they could take children regardless of their ability to pay. They are now providing free grammar school education to my constituents within a Catholic environment. As a result of the Government's proposals for the removal of grant-maintained status and the threat to grammar school status, at least one of those grammar schools, St. Ambrose college, is giving serious consideration to the possibility that the only way to protect its status as a Catholic school and as a grammar school is to leave the maintained sector again.
That should be a source of great embarrassment to Ministers and Labour Members. If they are creating an education policy that has the perverse effect of driving


away good schools, to the extent that those schools not only change their status but leave the maintained sector, the policy is having an appalling effect.
The Minister has spoken of standards, not structures, but the Government's proposals are having a terrible effect and destroying a structure that works and provides choice. In this instance, their proposals are potentially even driving a school away from the maintained sector. That, in my view, is the definition of a failed education policy.

Mr. Fallon: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 179. I do so on behalf of my constituents who are parents at the Judd school and those who are parents at grammar schools in Dartford, Tunbridge Wells and elsewhere in Kent. Those are the parents who will be disfranchised under the ballot proposed in the Bill.
Many of those parents may have supported the Labour party at the general election, in Dartford and elsewhere in Kent. They may have been beguiled by that Labour slogan, "Standards, not structure", yet here we are, nine months later, debating structure, rather than standards. Any hon. Members who doubt that have only to look at clause 96(7):
In this Chapter 'grammar school' means a school for the time being designated under this section.
Grammar schools reflect not just the designation of Ministers or the prescription of councils. They reflect above all the consent of their communities and the approval of the parents who send their children to them. By disfranchising parents from the ballots that will decide the future of those schools, the Government are proposing a monstrous unfairness. I want the Minister to reconsider that disfranchisement.
When we proposed ballots for grant-maintained schools, we did not get the ballots and the rules for them entirely right. We subsequently revised them. However, two points are clear. First, we had the courage to write those ballots into the Bill. That is not the case in the present Bill. Pieces of paper were simply circulated in Committee. I defy any hon. Member to read the four relevant clauses and say how the ballots will work. They are being left to subsequent regulations.
Secondly, we made sure that where there were to be ballots for grant-maintained schools, they involved the parents of the schools. That was our cardinal principle. We did not enforce grant-maintained status. It was one of the options for status under the Education Reform Act 1988. The schools could have been local authority schools, city technology colleges or grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Rowe: Does not the method chosen by the Government, of making regulations later, raise the—I am sure unworthy—suspicion that they are waiting to analyse the results of their various focus groups, so that they might create the type of ballot that they think will give them the answer they most want?

Mr. Fallon: That may well be the case. I suspect that, in those four clauses, old Labour is still at work, and Labour has not properly thought through how it can move to the new Labour ground of effective consultation.

It is noteworthy that, even in those local authorities where Labour took control and which have retained grammar schools, those Labour-controlled local authorities did not propose abolition of grammar schools, although they had the opportunity under the current statute to do so. Those Labour-controlled local authorities feared the reaction of local parents. Now, those precise parents will be the only group in their local area to be disfranchised. That is what Labour means by democracy.
Unless we pass amendment No. 179, those four clauses will be another example of the politics of envy. If Labour Members really believe in excellence, they should be attempting not to abolish but to extend—to build on the success of grammar schools, to build on the support that parents give to grammar schools, and to rejoice in that support—and to determine how they can strengthen the relationship between parents and their schools in other schools across our country.

Mr. Fabricant: I rise not in defence of any grammar schools in my constituency—I have none—but in defence of those constituencies, including Lichfield, which may want the opportunity to have a grammar school.
First, however, I join the clarion call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who asked why Labour Kent Members were not in the Chamber for this debate. I should like to know where the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) is. I was there for the Wirral, South by-election and heard him say that grammar schools were safe in Labour hands. It should be noted that he is not in the Chamber tonight.
Amendment No. 177 would deal with the asymmetry of the legislation, which says that there should be a ballot to get rid of grammar schools—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Good.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman says, "Good," from a sedentary position. However, if he supports balance, fairness and opportunity, which he talked about often enough in the general election—he nods assent now—why will he not also support balance in allowing grammar schools in areas that have none—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I shall heed your earlier admonition not to respond to sedentary interventions, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), has just said, "Because you lost the general election." He defiantly tells parents, "You fell for our con. You voted Labour. You actually believed our promise that choice was safe in our hands. Now hear what we arrogantly say: there can be only one-sided ballots—to get rid of grammar schools, not to create them."
As I said in an earlier intervention, arrogant Labour Members and the Minister without Portfolio attack the BBC—perhaps rightly—for dumbing down, yet they belong to the very party that wishes to destroy centres of excellence. What hypocrisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He came in earlier, but scurried out.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, there is a one-way ratchet. Once the decision has been made to get rid of a grammar school, history and excellence are destroyed.
I have a constituency interest—

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I am a generous person, and I shall give way shortly.
King Edward's school in Lichfield was founded 500 years ago. It was a grammar school, and Dr. Johnson was educated there. I know that some parents of pupils there would like the opportunity to choose whether it should be a grammar school again, but that opportunity is not being made available.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend referred a few moments ago to the Minister without Portfolio. Is he aware that the Minister benefited from a grammar school education? Does not he think it appalling and typical that the Minister is not in the Chamber now to witness the dirty work that he expects others to do in his name?

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend, but the Minister without Portfolio is not the only one who benefited from a grammar school education—the Minister for School Standards, who wants to be the hangman for opportunity in this country did, too. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Devonport, is another, and I am told that there are more.
A great opportunity is being destroyed. There is to be no opportunity to vote for a grammar school, and although there is to be an opportunity to get rid of a grammar school, it is not the parents of children who attend that school who can make that decision. Why not? If I were a suspicious person, I might say that it is because the Minister for School Standards, who benefited from a grammar school education, believes that, if those parents were balloted, they would want grammar schools to maintain their status. So what do the Government do? They are so determined, for dogmatic reasons, to destroy grammar schools that they disfranchise the parents of children at those schools and allow only the parents of children at the feeder schools to vote. They know that the majority of the parents of children at feeder schools would want all their children to attend a grammar school, and therefore think that the ballot would come out in their favour.
The Bill is ill thought out, as well as being asymmetrical and unfair. There is no mention of a quorum. How many people are going to be allowed to vote to do away with history? Will it be five or 10? If that many parents vote in favour of a change of status while the others stay at home, will that be sufficient to destroy certain schools and history, simply because of the politics of envy?
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, there is no control of funding. What is to stop the National Union of Teachers and other pressure groups paying for campaigns to make sure that schools with an excellent history are destroyed in the way that I have described? There has been no consideration of this point, either in Committee or in the Bill itself. If, despite all the odds that the Minister has set up to try to destroy grammar schools, the ballot fails and a grammar school is maintained, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to prevent another ballot from taking place five or 10 minutes later.
The Bill is ill thought out, and it shows the intrinsic weakness of new Labour. When it comes down to it, new Labour is no different from old Labour. All the Labour party wants is to destroy choice, opportunity and excellence; it wants to level down, and it despises the excellent.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will do what Shirley Williams and old Labour could not do, and abolish all the remaining grammar schools? Far from being new Labour, this "new Labour" party is old Labour, with all the venom and spite involved.

Mr. Fabricant: The Labour party is not just following in the footsteps of Shirley Williams; it is following in the footsteps of Anthony Crosland, who thought that it was his holy crusade to destroy excellence—an excellence that had been created so that people like the Ministers present tonight, who may or may not have been born with silver spoons in their mouths, would have the opportunity given to ordinary, decent people to excel if they had the ability to do so.
As I said, the Labour party wants to level down. It despises the excellent; it wants to promote unfairness; it wants to make a virtue out of dogma; it wants to destroy parents' choice in our country. More important, it wants to restrict the choice of our children and the future of the nation. I hope that the Labour party—and the Minister, who benefited from a grammar school education—will consider adopting amendment No. 177.

12 midnight

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I had not intended to speak, but since my election I have made a practice of noting the times when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is speaking, or has tabled an amendment. I came into the Chamber tonight to listen to her speech, and to note what she was saying. [Interruption.] Labour Members may have pause for thought in a moment.
Let me draw the House's attention to the precise words to which my right hon. Friend's amendment No. 165 attempts to draw its attention. Clause 97(9) states:
An authority or body"—
in this context, a governing body—
to whom this subsection applies shall not … publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears designed to influence the result of a ballot".
My right hon. Friend proposes that a codicil should be added to that, providing that such arguments should not benefit from public funds.
The issue that we are debating in the context of amendment No. 165 is not related to grammar schools, and is not related purely to ballots. It is not related to educational choice; indeed, it is not an education issue at all. We are debating an issue relating to free speech, a fundamental liberty that the House defends. Indeed, the very purpose of the House's existence is to defend free speech in this country.
Tonight the Government have an opportunity to refute a proposition that is implicit in my right hon. Friend's amendment—that they are a Government who deny, and


wish to continue to deny, and wish to legislate to deny, the right to free speech. To refute that proposition, the Government need only accept the three simple words suggested by my right hon. Friend.
Let us remember that, in the past few months, the Government have defended efforts by the European Commission to issue propaganda in favour of certain measures, with the use of public money. They have defended those efforts on the basis that the public deserve to be informed. Here we have a harmless governing body—a group of men and women, many of whom are doubtless parents, who have put themselves forward conscientiously with the aim of understanding the interests of their schools. What do the Government propose? They propose to legislate to prevent that body—the group of men and women most closely concerned with the school—from expressing a corporate opinion about a matter that is closely related to their interests, and, in many cases, the interests of their children.

Mr. David Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the implication of the Bill as it stands is that, if those volunteers, the members of the governing body, pressed ahead nevertheless and spent money—not public funds, but money voluntarily donated to protect the admission arrangements of their schools—the Bill would seek to make them criminals? Is that not a complete denial of justice and democracy?

Mr. Letwin: With his customary acuity, my hon. Friend moves the debate to the next question: what is the actual effect of the subsection? Is it, as he suggests, the intent to make criminals of such a body? I do not know whether it is possible in English law to make criminals of a body corporate. That raises a most interesting question. If it is not, is such action intended to be unlawful so that it could be prevented by injunction? Are we perhaps in the terrain suggested by the Lord Chancellor, when he proposed—I believe contrary to the opinions of many of his Front-Bench colleagues—that there should be injunctions ex ante to prevent certain things from being said by the press? Are we, on the contrary, dealing with something that would enable somebody to sue a governing body? If so, on what basis? We do not know.
I very much suspect that the Minister, for whom my hon. Friends and I have considerable respect, has included the statement in the Bill without sufficient thought about the consequences not just in education but across the terrain of public liberty. What is it to legislate to prevent a body corporate that does not use public money from making a statement, perfectly reasonably, about things that intimately concern it and its community? Is it to create criminals of such a body?

Mr. Grieve: Is not what emerges from the clauses the extent to which Government Front Benchers—undoubtedly the Secretary of State and the Minister—have been torn by the realisation that only by creating a rigged ballot can they get their way? It is because they

have realised that that is an unpalatable truth that they have kept the clauses so vague. In fact, they do not know what to do.

Mr. Letwin: I think that my hon. Friend must be right. Ministers hope by the vagueness of the clauses to catch much, not knowing what they may in practice be having to catch.

Mr. Denis MacShane: He is an old Etonian.

Mr. Letwin: I am absolutely convinced that the Government, in their better moments, cannot conceivably intend to achieve the effect that the subsection would achieve in the absence of amendment No. 165.

Mr. MacShane: He is an old Etonian.

Mr. Letwin: The Minister cannot possibly tell us that it is the Government's intention to restrict free speech in this country.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend considered whether the Bill might be in contravention of article 2 of the European convention on human rights, on the protection of minorities and freedom of speech? Does he think that the Bill has been cleared by the Government in that respect?

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I was coming exactly to that question. The situation is worse than he imagines. The Government do not rely merely on the European convention on human rights; they seek to enact it in British law. Has the Minister considered how a British court will adjudicate on the possibility of an injunction, criminal proceedings or whatever the Government may imagine under the clause, given the human rights legislation that they promote?
I cannot imagine, in the light of human rights legislation, the many things that the Government have said about freedom of information and the whole tenor of their rhetoric, that they genuinely intend to argue that free speech on these matters should be prevented by law. This must therefore be a case of legislative mischance. The draftsman must have slipped up. The Government must not have intended to put what they have included in the clause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, with her customary generosity, has offered the Government in three simple words a way of defending themselves against an attack that will otherwise resonate not just for the next few weeks or months, but for coming years.

Mr. MacShane: Old Etonian.

Mr. Letwin: Such an attack will be based on the principle of free speech, which the House must support—Labour Members as much as Conservative Members.
I genuinely hope that the Minister will tell us that, regardless of whatever else he accepts, he is willing to accept amendment No. 165. If he fails to do that, he will stand convicted of believing that individuals, knowing their situation and that of their children, should not be allowed to take a view.

Mr. Bercow: I am a strong supporter of grammar schools. I should dearly like there to be more. It is natural that I should support my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) on the amendments. I shall focus my remarks on amendments Nos. 177 and 165.
Labour Members have made some rumbustious, but not very articulate, sedentary interventions on the schooling of certain hon. Members. During the outstandingly eloquent speech that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has just made in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made comments about the old Etonian background of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I take this opportunity to emphasise that, in supporting amendment No. 177, I am motivated by an overwhelming desire to ensure that people who have not enjoyed a grammar school education and those who do not currently enjoy such an education should offer that prospect to others in future.
Unlike Labour Members, I am not shy about my educational background. I have no hesitation in stating that I did not enjoy the benefit of a public school or a grammar school education. It was my dubious privilege to go to a mid-market comprehensive school in the Finchley constituency then represented by my right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. I am delighted that, with the assistance of a small number of outstanding teachers and some application on my part, I managed to get to university.
It is a matter of concern that, though the hon. Member for Rotherham is happy to make abusive remarks about the education of others, he is not prepared to acknowledge the reality of his own. He is probably weak on the principle of free speech, and he is certainly weak on full disclosure. In his biographical details, he is suddenly afflicted by an unusual bout of reticence, which most of my hon. Friends have not previously detected in his character. He acknowledges that he—the great anti-elitist—went to Merton college, Oxford. I believe that he gained an MA in modern history at that noble establishment.

Mr. Rowe: I assure my hon. Friend that he should not judge Merton college entirely by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to the amendments.

Mr. Bercow: I happily return to the amendments. I was emphasising the rationale behind the support of Conservative Members for amendment No. 177. Those who have not enjoyed a grammar school education can wish others to do so. I simply observe that, if the hon. Member for Rotherham opposes amendment No. 177 and refrains from making a proper, crafted speech, preferring to make down-market and offensive contributions from a sedentary position, he should at least—in the context, of course, of debating amendment No. 177—make his educational background clear.

Mr. Fabricant: Would my hon. Friend be interested to learn that not only are we not hearing from the

hon. Member for Rotherham in the Chamber, but that any reference to where he went to secondary school has been deleted not only from "Dod" but also from "Who's Who"? The hon. Gentleman went to Merton college, Oxford, but it is a complete mystery where he was before that. Perhaps he would like to volunteer the information. Could he have been at Eton too?

Mr. Bercow: As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as I am sure the House will be happy to acknowledge, I am always, everywhere and in every particular a charitable individual, so it is not be for me to impugn the motives or the integrity of the hon. Gentleman, despite the disgusting socks that he regularly sports in the Chamber.
None the less, it is a matter of legitimate concern that, although he has opposed from a sedentary position amendment No. 177, and even amendment No. 165, which was so ably and articulately explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the hon. Gentleman has declined to divulge to the House his educational background. If there is a secret of which he is ashamed, the best way to ensure that it is kept in perpetuity is to rise to his feet in the House of Commons at this time of night and make a speech.
The issues in the debate, exemplified by the amendments, are of the essence in the context of our objections to the Bill. I begin my remarks about them by acknowledging at the outset that the Minister for School Standards has been fair in giving a hearing to views different from his own.
In the presence of other hon. Members who are aware of the fact, I can tell the House that a meeting sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and attended by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and by several Buckinghamshire county councillors was held at the Department for Education and Employment on 6 November.
The courtesy of the Minister's acceptance of our representations is not in doubt, although the soundness of his subsequent response most assuredly is. That is a matter for regret. There are good reasons why Conservative Members wish not only for the retention but for the extension of grammar schools in the United Kingdom. It is painfully apparent that not one Labour Member present is prepared to argue the case for grammar schools.

Mr. Grieve: Did it not become apparent at the meeting that we were really trying to do the Minister a good turn? One thing is certain: the loser from the Bill will be the Government. They may not get their referendums, but if they do get them they may lose them, and if they win them, there will be such disruption to the school system in Buckinghamshire that standards will fall.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. At that meeting and in our subsequent contributions to the debate we sought to help the Government. We attempted to extract them from the imbroglio into which their internal party politics had plunged them—

Mr. Blunkett: Imbroglio?

Mr. Bercow: If the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has difficulty in understanding that


word, I suggest that he repairs to the Library, even at this late hour, and consults a copy of the "Oxford English Dictionary". I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will find the word there.
There are good arguments both for the retention and for the extension of grammar schools, of which the first is that they are successful. They are beacons of excellence in the education system. I put it to the House, and more particularly to my right hon. and hon. Friends, that it is precisely the grammar schools' success that is the source of Labour Members' resentment of them.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just grammar schools that are successful, but the selective system? If one compares the composite results of grammar schools and secondary modem schools with neighbouring LEAs with comprehensive systems, one finds that all the children at the grammar schools and the secondary modern schools—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may be a public school boy. I do not know—I do not want to be rude. The evidence suggests that grammar schools and the selective system help all children in a given area.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and it is precisely for that reason that we wish to see the possibility of the extension of grammar schools. Grammar schools' very presence provides a catalyst for the raising of standards throughout the system.

Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend recall that the results from schools in our county show that secondary modern schools and upper schools in Buckinghamshire—despite Labour Members' allegations that grammar schools have creamed off the top 25 or 30 per cent. of the intake—were nevertheless often attaining significantly better results than comparable comprehensive schools in neighbouring counties?

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Moreover, the point is underlined by what people said during the election campaign. If the Government's logic is to be followed, it necessarily implies that, in an area where there are one or more grammar schools—attended, inevitably, by a minority of local children—the parents of most other children locally are antipathetic to grammar schools. The evidence is demonstrably the opposite.
In Buckinghamshire, only a small proportion of children go to grammar schools—in my constituency, it is a small proportion—yet support for grammar schools is enormous. In the context of this debate, I appeared on Channel 4 the other day. As a consequence, I have received a stream of letters from parents of pupils at schools other than the grammar school in my constituency saying that they strongly support and wish to see extended the number of grammar schools—and, therefore, that they strongly support amendment No. 177.

Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in April and May of last year, so great was the popularity of

grammar schools among Buckinghamshire parents that the local Liberal Democrats got extremely upset—to the extent of threatening legal action—when it was pointed out that they had opposed selective education over many years? Does this explain their silence in tonight's debate?

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The lily-livered Liberal Democrats, in their characteristic fashion, had said one thing in the past, were not prepared to admit to it in the present, and denied their intention to revert to it in the future. That is of a piece with Liberal Democrats' politics—they are pioneers in unprincipled politics, and they are without equal in the UK.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I cannot let the debate pass without mentioning Clitheroe royal grammar school in my constituency and the fact that my Liberal Democrat opponent said during the election that he did not support the retention of the grammar school and the selective procedure. I believe that that was one of the reasons I had one of the lowest swings in the country against me. Does not the fact that grammar schools are oversubscribed show their popularity? People want to go to grammar schools, and they travel for miles—even from outside my constituency—to Clitheroe royal grammar school because of the good education that it delivers.

Mr. Bercow: I have no doubt that the quality of grammar schools in my hon. Friend's area was a significant contributor to his success at the election, but it would be unfair to pass on without mentioning that his success must also have been due to his outstanding diligence and charm, which are regularly on display in equal measure.
I fear that, in developing the point about the success and continuing popularity of grammar schools, I am inviting comments—it is a welcome invasion—from the hordes of my hon. Friends who have stories to tell of the dramatic successes of the grammar schools and upper schools in their constituencies. It is a merry tale.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The problem is that it becomes rather repetitive.

Mr. Bercow: Far be it from me to want to fall foul of the amiable temper that is usually on display in the Speaker's Chair. I shall therefore take note of your kindly advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I cannot resist the opportunity to refer to the success of grammar schools nationally and locally, as that provides the rationale for amendment No. 177, which represents our request that individuals be granted the opportunity to vote to create grammar schools as well as to destroy them. The success of grammar schools nationally is not in doubt—no Labour Member has argued that they are failures.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the mechanism suggested in amendment No. 177 would enable more grammar schools to be retained? If the purpose of the Bill is to abolish grammar schools, does he think that that would in any way raise educational standards? In answering that question, will he be mindful of Pates grammar school in Gloucester, which has 170 applicants for each place?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who confirms the popularity of and demand for grammar


schools. The idea is absurd and illogical that, by dismantling those institutions that are already achieving excellence, we increase the chances of achieving excellence elsewhere in the system at some time in the future.
Nationally, grammar schools are tremendously successful: 94 per cent. of children who attend them obtain five or more GCSEs at grades A to C; more than 94 per cent. stay on in the sixth forms of those schools; and more than 88 per cent. of them go on to higher education. That all testifies to the institutions' success.
Locally, in Buckinghamshire, the position is similar. At the Royal Latin grammar school in Buckingham, 96 per cent. of children in the relevant age cohort secure at least five GCSEs at grades A to C, and more than 64 per cent. achieve A-levels at grades A to C. A substantial proportion of those children go on to higher education.
Grammar schools are succeeding, which is a powerful reason why those who do not have the opportunity of a grammar school education should be given one and why future generations should also be afforded that opportunity. That would be consistent with what the Secretary of State said in opposition—as was reported in the Financial Times of 7 February 1997. He said that a Labour Government would pose no threat to the continuance, ethos or quality of grammar schools. If that is what he believes, why is he going to allow ballots, which will have no minimum turnout requirement, to destroy excellence overnight? That simply does not hang together logically.
If the Secretary of State values or does not want to threaten the ethos of those schools, what is the objection in principle to giving people the opportunity to spread that ethos elsewhere in the education system? Perhaps the Minister can tell us tonight—or should I say this morning?

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not only obvious demand for the grammar school ethos but huge scope for a wider variety of schools? The highly academic ethos of the grammar school is by no means the only successful model that ought to be spread round the country.

Mr. Bercow: I am in favour of having as wide a market and as great a diversity in education as possible. That is our commitment and our belief, and that was our record. That could not credibly be said of the Labour Government. That is why we support amendment No. 177.
We also support amendment No. 165, for the reasons eloquently stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. We believe passionately in free speech. Either the Government believe in the principle and practice of free speech or they do not.
If the Government are content with the idea that trade unions can mount expensive and probably unrepresentative campaigns against grammar schools, why are they not prepared to allow governing bodies to campaign for them, especially if they do not do so at public expense? The concern about public expense expressed by the Minister has been met by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, so the Government should accept amendment No. 165.
I cannot for a moment see why teachers and governors of grammar schools should be required to keep mum and to preserve neutrality on whether the institutions to which they have given outstanding commitment should continue to exist. The idea that they should be obliged to remain impartial between good and bad, right and wrong, future success and future failure, is positively absurd.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald made the argument overwhelmingly for amendment No. 165, and the response from Conservative Members demonstrated beyond peradventure that we all agree with her. What credible argument does the Minister have to offer in response? Let it be stated this morning, and let it be lucid.

Mr. Byers: I could not resist the temptation offered by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to reply to this important debate. We have listened to Opposition Members' concerns about our proposals. We certainly do not treat these matters as trivial, as some of them suggested. I have been pleased to discuss these matters with several right hon. and hon. Members. We want the ballot procedures to be open, fair and transparent.
We have been helped in drawing up the draft proposals by Opposition Members' contributions. I have been pleased to be able to meet several of them—not only those from Buckinghamshire—and they have taken me in detail through the arguments as they affect their schools. I believe that our proposals, which I shared with members of the Standing Committee, reflected in some measure some of their contributions. I regret the fact that we could not meet all the concerns that were expressed, but we were able to move some way towards addressing them.
I have to disagree with the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who said at the beginning of the debate that he had no notion of the detailed procedures that the Government would want to adopt. We circulated draft proposals to Committee members, which ran to seven pages and 37 separate paragraphs and which revealed our present thinking, but we are prepared to continue to listen. Indeed, one of the benefits of this debate is that Conservative Members have raised a number of issues which I am certainly prepared to reflect on and reconsider in the light of our draft proposals.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood raised one issue on which I agreed. He said that, if we had wanted, we could have moved in this Bill to the abolition of grammar schools. The Bill does not do that. In fact, it honours our manifesto commitment in the run-up to the election on 1 May, when we said clearly that the future of grammar schools would be a matter for local parents to determine. That is exactly the policy that is reflected in the regulations and the proposed approach that we shared with Committee members. Local parents will be able to determine the future of grammar schools: not local education authorities, not individual schools, not the National Union of Teachers, but local parents, will have the power and responsibility to determine the future of those schools.

Mr. Bercow: At the risk of embarrassing the hon. Gentleman, I want to place it on record that I have the highest admiration for his talents and ability as a Minister. I hope that he will take my point in good part. To prove his good intentions, will he now give the House a


commitment that, when the regulations are issued, they will contain something specific on the subject of a minimum ballot turnout before a grammar school can be abolished?

Mr. Byers: There is a far better way to approach the issue, which is by providing a minimum number to trigger the petition. If there is not local support for a ballot, it would be far more effective to ensure that that is tested at a far earlier stage than looking at turnouts at the ballot itself, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear since the early days of our consideration of this matter that we will expect a petition to be triggered by 20 per cent. of eligible parents, reflecting the position that Conservative Members adopted on grant-maintained school ballots. So that is the position.
I can go further and say that there will not be a rolling petition going from school year to school year. The Government intend to ensure that the petition is triggered in the school year in which signatures are first collected. That has always been our intention, and we shared that with the right hon. Member for Charnwood in Committee.

Mr. Dorrell: Will the Minister therefore assure the House that the petition will not merely be time-limited, but that, if an attempt is made in one school year to mount a petition and the promoters fail to secure the support of at least 20 per cent. of parents, it will not be possible for a further petition to be mounted for five years?

Mr. Byers: No, I am not prepared to give that undertaking, because our view is that the moratorium should apply to a ballot once it has been held. I think the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said that there could be one ballot and then another five minutes later. Our present thinking is that there should be a moratorium of five years on ballots, rather than petitions. We are of the view that local parents should be able to trigger the petition in any one school year, and do not intend to block parents expressing their views by doing so.

Mr. Fallon: Therefore, why should not parents at the school be able to be involved in that ballot?

Mr. Byers: There will be two different situations. I think hon. Members are aware of the distinction that we have drawn between whole authority-wide ballots, in which parents will be involved, and free-standing ballots. We have taken the view that, on balance, it is not appropriate for only a grammar school's parents to make the decision on that school; it should be the feeder schools.
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all parents of children attending secondary schools—not only the grammar schools but other secondary schools—should be part of the ballot? If he is, we may want to reflect on it, because it would allow all parents whose children go to secondary schools to have a vote on whether secondary education should be selective or non-selective. It is a logical conclusion of his point that, if grammar school parents have a ballot, it should be extended to all parents with children at secondary schools. Is that what he is suggesting?

Mr. Fallon: I know that the Minister has been thinking about these matters. By inviting us to consider whether

parents of all secondary schools in an area should be involved, he is admitting that it is wrong to disfranchise the parents of the grammar school itself.

Mr. Byers: No. We believe that our proposals, which would make the parents of children attending feeder schools the electorate, is the right way forward. I am saying in a spirit of generosity, to open up a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman, that, if he is suggesting that we should spread the franchise to parents of children attending all secondary schools, I would be prepared to consider it.

Mr. Grieve: In Buckinghamshire, in my constituency, there is much movement between upper schools and grammar schools of pupils aged 15 and 16. That is another argument for allowing all those in secondary education to be included. If I understood it, the Minister's rationale was that those directly affected, without going to a de minimis rule, should be allowed the vote. If it is to go to those who are directly affected, the parents of pupils at grammar schools must be included.

Mr. Byers: Yes, and in many cases they will be, because we will distinguish between free-standing grammar schools and places where a wholly selective system covers a local education authority. In those circumstances, the parents of children attending grammar schools will have a vote.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Byers: I shall not give way for a while, because it has been a lengthy debate and I wish to make some progress.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made several important points. I have reflected carefully on them, and on those that he made when we met a couple of weeks ago about our proposals on the details of the balloting arrangements. On the campaign, we have made it clear that, if there is any misleading information that might materially affect the outcome of a ballot, the Secretary of State will have the power to declare it void. That reflects the position on balloting arrangements for grant-maintained status.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) discussed amendment No. 165 and said that there was a gagging clause. I would not have put it like that, but she is right to say that we have sought to introduce restrictions on the information that governing bodies and local education authorities can provide.
I listened to the right hon. Lady carefully. I considered at an earlier stage the possibility of introducing a condition about campaigning at public expense to overcome the concerns that she expressed. Practically, it will be difficult to distinguish between spending at public expense by the local education authority or a school governing body, and spending money that may be raised by the people involved.
There is no attempt to gag or to deny free speech. There will be nothing to stop the governors of a grammar school setting themselves up as friends of the grammar school to campaign against selection. They will be entitled to do that, not as governors but in their separate capacity as individual members of the local population. They will be free to do that.
Amendment No. 177 would allow new grammar schools to be established. We believe that grammar schools and the selective system are flawed, which is why we are drawing a line in the sand and saying that there will be no new grammar schools and that it will be a matter for local parents to determine the future of the 164 grammar schools that remain.
We do that because we take the view that selection denies choice. It is the school that chooses, not the parent who selects. We had a good example from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who said that, in one of his local schools, 170 parents were competing for each place. The reality is that 169 parents are denied the school of their choice. That is the nature of selection.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Byers: No, I want to make progress.
I shall be asking the House to reject amendment No. 177 because it would simply turn the clock back to the days of the 11-plus and a massive waste of talent. At the age of 11, some young people were deemed to be a success, but the majority were deemed to be failures. Labour Members are not prepared to endorse such an approach, which is why I ask the House to reject amendment No. 177.

Mr. Dorrell: The Minister started off sounding reasonably encouraging, but he finished with a tone that was, I am afraid, depressingly familiar and predictable. Anyone listening to the arguments made in the debate must conclude that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made a powerful case, to which the Minister made little or no attempt to respond. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was not arguing that we should seek to introduce a traditional selective system across the country, but made the point that the Bill promised his constituents the proposition that the status of Ripon grammar should be permanently open to question—and that from a Government who say that they are interested in standards, not structure.
No one can look at the results achieved by the grammar schools and the other schools serving my right hon. Friend's constituents and say that the system as a whole is not delivering quality. Yet the Government whose slogan is that they are interested in standards, not structure, threaten my right hon. Friend's constituents with the prospect that the arrangements that serve them well will be subject to upheaval and change.
Such change would not be devoted to delivering standards. No case has been made against the standards delivered to my right hon. Friend's constituents. The structure would be reformed in a way that would satisfy the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and a large number of Labour Back Benchers, but also in a way that the Minister is perceptibly uncomfortable in defending. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made a case to which the Minister did not respond.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made his disreputable comment

about grammar schools, the Minister for School Standards raised his eyebrows and looked askance in my right hon. Friend's direction, then at me, in naked embarrassment?

Mr. Dorrell: It is fair to say that that was not the only moment in the debate when the Minister for School Standards looked as though he would have preferred to be somewhere else.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) proposed that the admissions authority—the governing body of a school—should have the opportunity to present the school's case. Some of those schools have 500 years'—sometimes even more—experience of delivering high-quality service. All that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) seek is the opportunity for the governing body, as the authority in charge of the school, to present the case for the school's record.
The Minister's response was that, as private citizens, the governors can go out raise money and present the case; but he did not offer any prospect that the governing body as the governing body can present the case to parents of children at the school and its feeder schools for the way in which the school operates. Once again, the Minister did not respond to the case made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend assist me before I determine how to cast my vote? I raise a serious matter on behalf of the parents of children at the Queen Elizabeth high school and the Caistor grammar school. In times past, when there were many grammar schools, the feeder schools were in the immediate locality; now, such schools are so popular that they are drawing pupils from miles around, from Nottinghamshire and Grimsby and from feeder schools that are very distant from those ancient grammar schools. Will my right hon. Friend assist me, because the Minister clearly has not, by explaining exactly how the feeder schools are to be defined? Should we not know that before we vote on the matter?

Mr. Dorrell: I wish that I could help my hon. Friend, who seeks reassurance. I invite him to support the amendment, because the Minister has failed—not only this evening, but throughout repeated debates on this subject in Committee—to offer answers to the question that my hon. Friend poses. Here we have 163 schools, the future of which Is to be determined by a balloting process, but the Minister has resolutely refused to offer more than general guidance about how the ballots are to be held, who is to vote, which schools are to be considered feeder schools, or who within the feeder schools is to have a vote.
I asked several questions in my opening speech about which parents from which feeder schools will have a vote in what circumstances, but the Minister did not even address any of those questions when winding up the debate. I should love to be able to offer my hon. Friend answers to his questions, but I cannot, because the Government insist that the House decides the substance of the clause without telling the House what will be its practical effect on the delivery of service by individual schools.

Mr. Hayes: Perhaps I can assist my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough


(Mr. Leigh) by quoting from the Labour party manifesto, on which the Minister relied heavily during his remarks. In extraordinary detail, the manifesto states—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Order.

Mr. Hayes: The manifesto states—I approximate—that local parents will decide—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. What the hon. Gentleman must do in an intervention is abbreviate.

Mr. Hayes: In an abbreviated form, would my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) concede that most people would deem "local parents deciding" to mean local parents with a direct interest in the school?

Mr. Dorrell: That is precisely right, which brings me to the next question the Minister failed to answer in his winding-up speech. Surely to goodness, the people who have the closest and greatest interest in the continued existence of a grammar school are the parents of the children in the school.
I return to the question with which I started the debate: what is the basis on which the Minister will defend his system when he has to explain to the parents of children in a free-standing grammar school that parents of children in the primary schools that feed the grammar school will have a vote to determine the future of the grammar school, but parents of children actually being educated in the grammar school will have no vote whatever in determining the future status of that school? One can have a parent—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tedious repetition.

Mr. Dorrell: I have said it before, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is not tedious repetition; I am reminding the House that the Minister did not answer that question when he replied to the debate. That question will come back to hit the Ministers when they have to explain to parents why they do not have a vote in deciding the future of the school in which their children are being educated.
The parents of 11-year-olds will find that, although seven years of their child's education have been committed to a specific school, the future status of that school will be decided not—as the Government promised before the general election—by the parents of children with an interest in the school, but by parents of children in primary schools, some of whom may well have an interest in the future of the school, but others of whom, before their children reach the age of 11, may move to a different area and have no interest in the school's future.
I asked several more questions in my opening speech. How can it possibly be sensible for all the parents of a mixed feeder school to vote for the future status of a single-sex grammar school? Should parents of girls in primary schools vote on the future status of the boys' grammar school? How can that be justified?
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that parents must have a right to vote in determining decisions about the school in which

their children are being educated. He also emphasised the most important of the principles that came up in the debate—to which, once again, the Minister did not respond: the question whether we should create an opportunity for the success of grammar schools that deliver high-quality service to be copied, extended and reproduced in parts of the country that do not currently have that system.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have just taken advice, and I am advised that, in Committee, the question whether the provisions would breach article 2 of the European convention on human rights was not raised. Does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a possible conflict, and could there be a reference to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of these provisions?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to ask whether there can be a conflict. There might indeed be such a conflict, as the Government propose that a decision affecting individual children be taken for those children by the parents of a collection of other children, brought together by the Minister's guidance but excluding the parents of the children most directly involved in the individual school whose future is in question.
The proposition—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington complains about the fact that I keep returning to the point. I have returned to the point because I believe firmly that it is the fatal flaw in the Government's proposal.
The essence of the question before the House tonight is whether grammar schools are safe with the Government. That was the pledge—the reassurance—that the Labour party sought to give, first at the time of the Wirral by-election and then during the general election campaign. I remind the House of what the Secretary of State said of such schools in the run-up to the general election: that there would be
no threat to their continuance, or to their ethos, or to their quality".
How can anyone who has listened to the debate, and to the views expressed from a sedentary position by a wide variety of Labour Back Benchers, continue to believe that the Government offer no threat to the continuance of grammar schools? That is not the essence of the message that has come from the Labour Benches tonight.
I shall seek, therefore, to withdraw amendment No. 175, in order to seek to divide the House on amendment No. 177. Amendment No. 177 would allow individual schools that want to promote themselves as grammar schools to seek the support of parents of children attending the school to take a successful formula and to introduce it where they can obtain the support of local parents to do so.
It is impossible to argue against extending the principle where it is seen to work and generalising good practice. I seek the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, anyone else in the House, for that important principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 177, in page 70, line 32, at end insert—
'(3A) Regulations may make provision that where a maintained school is not a grammar school,—


(a) the admission authority for a school may submit an application to the Secretary of State to change the admission arrangements of the school so that the school will qualify for designation as a grammar school under this section;
(b) when the Secretary of State receives an application under this subsection he shall arrange for a ballot of parents who would qualify to vote in a ballot under section 97 and if a majority of those parents support the application of the admission authority, the admission authority shall secure that the admission arrangeents of the school are revised in accordance with its proposal.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 279.

Division No. 225]
[1 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunter, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Baldry, Tony
Jenkin, Bernard


Beggs, Roy
Johnson Smith,


Bercow, John
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Key, Robert


Blunt, Crispin
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Boswell, Tim
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brady, Graham
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


(Chipping Barnet)
Loughton, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Luff, Peter


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
May, Mrs Theresa


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Gibb, Nick
Randall, John


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gray, James
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Greenway, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Grieve, Dominic
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hammond, Philip
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Spring, Richard


Hayes, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heald, Oliver
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary





Swayne, Desmond
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Syms, Robert
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Tyrie, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles
Sir David Madel and Mr. Stephen Day.


Waterson, Nigel





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allan, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Dafis, Cynog


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dalyell, Tam


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Baker, Norman
Darvill, Keith


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Barnes, Harry
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dawson, Hilton


Berry, Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blackman, Liz
Doran, Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dowd, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Drown, Ms Julia


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brake, Tom
Edwards, Huw


Brand, Dr Peter
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Breed, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fearn, Ronnie


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fisher, Mark


Browne, Desmond
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Norman A


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Grant, Bernie


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grogan, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clelland, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hancock, Mike


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harris, Dr Evan


Coleman, Iain
Harvey, Nick


Colman, Tony
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Connarty, Michael
Healey, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoey, Kate


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John






Hoon, Geoffrey
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hope, Phil
Macdonald, Calum


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McDonnell, John


Howells, Dr Kim
McFall, John


Hoyle, Lindsay
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
McIsaac, Shona


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McLeish, Henry


Hurst, Alan
McNulty, Tony


Hutton, John
MacShane, Denis


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Illsley, Eric
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mandelson, Peter


Jamieson, David
Marek, Dr John


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Martlew, Eric


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Miller, Andrew


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Mitchell, Austin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Moffatt, Laura


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Keeble, Ms Sally
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Keetch, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Kemp, Fraser
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mountford, Kali


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mudie, George


Kidney, David
Mullin, Chris


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Laxton, Bob
Norris, Dan


Lepper, David
Oaten, Mark


Levitt, Tom
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Olner, Bill


Lock, David
O'Neill, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Öpik, Lembit


McCabe, Steve
Pearson, Ian


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Pickthall, Colin





Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stunell, Andrew


Pope, Greg
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Prosser, Gwyn
(Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Rowlands, Ted
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Roy, Frank
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Truswell, Paul


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sanders, Adrian
Tyler, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Ms Joan


Shaw, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Webb, Steve


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wicks, Malcolm


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wills, Michael


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Woolas, Phil


Spellar, John
Wray, James


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Janet Anderson and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.



Stott, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 100

HOME-SCHOOL AGREEMENTS

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 74, line 25, after 'adopt', insert
'and from time to time review'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 126, in page 74, line 25, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy.'.
No. 127, in page 74, line 25, leave out from 'school' to the end of line 26.
No. 128, in page 74, line 28, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy.'.
No. 129, in page 74, line 28, leave out 'specifying' and insert
'designed to promote partnership between home and school, including'.
No. 130, in page 74, leave out lines 40 to 45.
No. 131, in page 75, leave out lines 1 to 22.
No. 132, in page 75, line 23, leave out 'agreement or parental declaration' and insert 'policy.'
No. 133, in page 75, line 24, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy'.
No. 134, in page 75, leave out lines 30 to 32.
No. 135, in clause 101, page 75, line 41, leave out
'agreement or (as the case may be) in a parental declaration'
and insert 'policy'.
No. 136, in page 76, leave out lines 2 to 13.
No. 137, in page 76, leave out lines 14 to 16.
No. 138, in page 76, line 17, leave out 'agreement' and insert 'policy'.

Mr. Foster: This group of amendments would remove from the Bill a requirement for every school to have a home-school agreement, and to replace it with a requirement for every school to have a home-school policy.
I make it absolutely clear that we are not opposed in principle to the notion of home-school agreements. However, we believe that, if there is to be a home-school agreement, it should be part of a school's home-school policy, and that it should be part of that policy only if the school decides that it is an appropriate contribution within that particular school in developing home-school relationships.
We are specifically concerned about the way in which the Government propose to operate their plans for home-school agreements. In Committee, the Minister for School Standards said:
The agreement will be signed between a parent's being offered a place and the child actually taking up that place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 February 1998; c. 688.]
The agreement will therefore have to be signed by the parent before the child has even entered the school—which is rather like establishing a pre-nuptial agreement before the partners had even met.
We appreciate that, in the circumstances covered by the Government's proposals, not one parent will refuse to sign the agreement. If they refuse to sign it, they might fear

that their refusal will somehow jeopardise their child's education at a school. Although we realise that the Minister—we are grateful for it—has made it very clear that failure to sign will not jeopardise a child's entitlement to a place, it is nevertheless equally clear that all parents will sign the agreement for fear of jeopardising their child's education.
The concept of a completely non-binding partnership agreement was examined as long as 20 years ago, by the Taylor committee, a majority of whose members concluded that the idea of an unenforceable contract was a bad one. They thought that it was the suggestion by a few of a quick and easy way of enlisting home support, but acknowledged that it would not be a particularly satisfactory way of doing so. We certainly believe that the imposition of such agreements will not improve the relationships between home and school—and, indeed, could even confuse the existing relationships.
1.15 am
In a letter that he wrote on 19 February, the chairman of the Education Forum, Mr. Maurice Plaskow, eloquently summarised the crux of the problem:
The key issue is whether every school should be required to have agreements, or can choose whether or not to have them, as part of a flexible approach to developing home-school partnerships.
We want that flexible approach to which he refers.
Many groups have expressed considerable concern about the Government's proposals and the detrimental effect that, like us, they believe they might have. Those groups include the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education, the Advisory Centre for Education, the National Governors Council, the Secondary Heads Association—the list goes on.
Many contributed to a letter that appeared in The Independent on 7 March this year. I think that a brief extract would be of interest to the House:
We believe that this requirement could lead to division rather than partnership between parent and school and, further, that it will impose an extra administrative burden on schools.
The Advisory Centre for Education said:
Disciplinarian home school contracts look like an attractive quick fix. They locate the problem in a particular, discrete area (parents), divert our attention from politically embarrassing questions (the organisation and funding of education), placate powerful interest groups (teacher unions) and fit in neatly with current concerns about social standards".
In other words, they regard the proposed approach as the quick fix rather than what we and they believe is necessary, which is the development of a home-school policy in which there is equal partnership.
If there is to be a contract that all parents are required to sign before the child has even entered the school, it is clear that the parents are not on a par with the school itself. An effective home-school policy involves equality for the partners. There must be an opportunity for both partners—the school and the home—to share ownership of whatever the agreement might be.

Mr. Fallon: Does that mean that the policy, as distinct from the agreement, should be voluntary?

Mr. Foster: The whole point of what I am suggesting is that the school would develop a policy, and that the policy itself would be drawn up by the home and school


in partnership. The hon. Gentleman is right; it would nevertheless be a voluntary policy, in the same way that the Government's own policy for a partnership agreement cannot have sanctions attached to it, as the Minister has made clear.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is little value in having a document which parents are required to sign in advance of their child entering the school but to which no sanctions can be attached. I am sure that he would prefer a system in which the school and parents work together to develop a policy that may include a partnership agreement of the type that the Minister has described.
I am aware that the House is keen to make progress, but I hope that I have, with those few brief words, explained clearly why the Government's policy is not going to be successful in developing the type of home-school partnership that we all want—a partnership in which, for the first time, we perhaps consider not only the rights of parents and the responsibilities of schools but the responsibilities of parents and the rights of schools. That notion needs to be enshrined in a home-school policy, but one for which the home and school have equal responsibility and of which they have equal ownership.

Mrs. Browning: The problem that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has clearly encountered is one that we encountered in Committee. It typifies the experiences of those who served on the Committee. By failing to present detailed proposals, the Government have deprived both the Committee and the House of an opportunity to deal with the specifics of what they have in mind.
Amendment No. 125 suggests that the policy should be reviewed from time to time, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that proposal. Most home-school agreements would be subject to review, and that would be a good thing. When presenting his idea, however, the hon. Member for Bath seemed unclear about the exact difference between an agreement and a policy, if both were to be voluntary.
The Minister told the Committee that home-school agreements would be subject to consultation. He said that the contracts would contain the sort of provisions that one would expect to see—for example, provisions relating to standards of education, the ethos of the school, regular and punctual attendance, discipline, homework and information that schools and parents exchange. We agree with all that in principle, but the hon. Member for Bath is now saying that what is in the Bill will be insufficient, and will not represent a true partnership between parents and schools.
In Committee, we discussed exclusions. It was suggested then that the conditions on which a child who had been excluded from a school was readmitted might—I emphasise the word "might"; again, the Government were not specific—be written into the agreements. In that event, when parents sent their children to a school, they would know in advance—because of what had been published in the home-school agreement—the conditions on which children who had been excluded might be taken back. In Committee, however, we never really clarified exactly what the Government had in mind, and whether they were happy for such agreements to encompass the conditions on which exclusions would be dealt with.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, partnership is needed. Schools and teachers, including head teachers, do not always receive the support they should be able to expect. Equally, parents often complain that schools do not share information with them, and that they are not always made aware of school rules or standards relating to, for instance, when homework is expected to be delivered. They do not always know what their role is.
I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that partnership is needed between parents and schools, but it is not always possible to legislate for that, because parents do not always agree with actions that teachers consider appropriate. In the middle of all that—between the school and the parents with whom it would have a contract—are the children themselves. They clearly need to be made aware of an agreement to which they would be party.
The way in which the agreements would be communicated is still rather unclear, because the House has not been told exactly what is behind the Government's thinking. We find it peculiar that they cannot give us the details, thus saving—perhaps—some time on amendments such as this. After all, they have been able to come up with the costing for the contracts. According to the Government's own figures, the administrative cost of home-school contracts is likely to amount to £1.6 million in 1998–99, and to an additional £0.5 million a year thereafter.
It therefore seems strange that, in an important part of the Bill on which there could be quite a bit of cross-party consensus, the Government have been able to provide costings but still cannot provide detailed information on the content of a contract, and more particularly, on exactly how much autonomy a school and a group of parents will have in drawing it up.
The hon. Member for Bath has made it clear that he believes that there should be dialogue and a contract drawn up before children attend a school. I would not disagree with that principle. He will know—although he did not touch on it—that clause 101 says that the Secretary of State will have the power by order to instruct that
any form of words—

(a) specified in the order, or
(b) having such effect as is so specified,
is not used in a home-school agreement".
Although the Government say that they have a broad idea of what would be appropriate in a home-school contract, and although the hon. Gentleman believes that there should be much more of a partnership between the school and the parent, at the end of the day, as one would expect in the Bill, the Secretary of State will have the power to determine the wording of the agreements.
Although we have had to deal with this part of the Bill without the benefit of the full detail that one would have expected the Government to provide, it seems clear that there will not be freedom for negotiation between parents and a school, as I assume the hon. Member for Bath wants, because the Secretary of State may intervene to override the precise wording of individual home-school agreements. That causes concern.
Why do the Government believe that that is necessary? Why do they believe that schools and parents cannot agree? Such contracts will vary from school to school.
How can the Government stipulate that the Secretary of State should intervene in the school contract in such detail, while being unable to provide us with all the things we discussed in Committee, which I will not rehearse but which are clearly behind the thinking of the hon. Member for Bath in tabling the amendments?

Mr. Hayes: The relationship between home and school is obviously central to clauses 100 and 101. It is recognised across the Chamber that that relationship is fundamental to educational progress and success. It has been so recognised by educationists for many years—perhaps always. Equally important are the expectations that the school has of parents and their role, and then the parents have of the school. That those expectations are set, confirmed, codified and communicated is critical if parents are to know how the school expects the child to be prepared for and supported in their learning, and parents are to know what they can reasonably expect the school to deliver to their child.
The home-school agreement must be sensitive to the needs not only of the school but of a particular child. In that respect, I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He talks about a policy being better than an agreement. A policy is a planned, coherent approach; a way of doing things; a set of ideas; whereas an agreement implies some sorted of binding relationship between parties or partners.
On the one hand the hon. Member for Bath says that he wants partnership, but on the other he says that he prefers policies to agreements. Surely agreements imply partnerships in a way that policies do not. Most schools already have policies for the relationship between home and school. It would be a very poor school that did not include that relationship in its strategic planning document. Such policies do not equal specific agreements that confirm the expectations of the school and the parents on what each of those partners will deliver.
The hon. Member for Bath should rethink whether an agreement is better than a policy. The Government must be clear about who will be responsible for putting the agreement together. It is obvious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has said, that the agreement will benefit enormously from the flexibility—

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman passionately believes that an agreement is better than a policy. Does he accept that the word "agreement" means that both sides have jointly accepted it? If so, does he accept that an agreement that is imposed by one side on the other, as the Government are proposing, is not the same as the agreements that he is talking about?

Mr. Hayes: Yes, I am happy to concede that point. The word "agreement" implies some discussion and an appropriate exchange of views about the contents of the document. It should also be reviewed in the light of the child's progress through the school. It would be nonsense for that not to be the case.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that his understanding of an agreement is of something that has been discussed and agreed by both

sides. What sanctions does he believe should fall on anyone who is not prepared to sign such an agreement? The Minister has made it clear that no sanctions would be attached to the agreements that the Government are considering. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be sanctions for those who are not prepared to sign agreements?

Mr. Hayes: The difficulty with sanctions is that turning a voluntary agreement that has been negotiated in the flexible and pragmatic way that I have described into a legally binding contract creates the potential for litigation, which might well be founded on irrational grounds. A parent who was not acting rationally or even in the best interests of their child, but fulfilling a grudge against the school, would be able to use the full panoply of the law to pursue that irrational course of action.
Let me also put the other side of that coin. Sometimes, a school will not be able to fulfil its side of the agreement, for reasons entirely beyond its control. If the local education authority came under Labour control and cut services and resources—as has happened with Labour authorities throughout history—the school would be in the invidious position, through no fault of its own, of not being able to deliver the range of services that it had promised that parents could reasonably expect. The potential for litigation thus dissuades me from advocating a legal document of the type that the hon. Member for Bath describes.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I am intrigued by how my hon. Friend envisages the flexible system working. Suppose that I were induced to negotiate such an agreement on behalf of our Albert for his education. Does my hon. Friend envisage that I would negotiate with the head teacher a specific agreement on the circumstances for my son? If not, what is the value of it?
Moreover, what happens if the school does not fulfil the agreement? I might not be being unreasonable; I could be being entirely reasonable. Would that not necessarily open up the issue to the law?

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention—and the first intervention has been going on long enough.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rushing to my assistance in an awkward situation. I shall try to deal with the substance of that intervention, if I may. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, South—[Interruption.] Is it East?

Mr. Swayne: West.

Mr. Hayes: New Forest, West. I think that that is the place where the ponies are not.
My hon. Friend talked about the difference between an agreement and something with the sanction of the law, and the obligations which that implies. My hon. Friend is here tonight by agreement; the Whips would not sue him if he were not here. Yesterday he agreed to buy me a meal at the Savoy, but I shall not sue him if he fails to do so.
The lack of legal ability to enforce those agreements does not negate them. They depend on his will to be here, my will to accept his hospitality, and the Whips' generosity, which in my hon. Friend's case is endless.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend, whom I thank for his characteristic courtesy in giving way to me, will agree that a body of men and women of sounder common sense than is to be found in South Holland and The Deepings would be unimaginable. Will he therefore tell the House whether the good burghers of that constituency are manning the barricades in support of legally binding home-school agreements?

Mr. Hayes: First, because of its European connotations, "burghers" is not a word that I would want to apply to the inhabitants of my noble constituency—which, as I have said before, is full of decent fen people who are close to God.
There seems to me to be a reasonable demand by parents for clarity about what they can expect from their local schools. Given that the law obliges them to send their children to school, and obliges the children to attend school for the most important years of their lives, in terms of their development, it does not seem unreasonable for parents to demand that expectations be codified and communicated in a reasonably coherent and consistent way.
That is what we aim to achieve with home-school agreements, but there is a lack of clarity in the Government's position. They seem to have alighted on a good idea but not to have had the necessary foresight, or perhaps the time and energy to develop it. I often look at those on the Government Benches and see a swathe of the half-hearted and the half-witted. I do not know which of those characteristics is to blame in this case, but the Government do not seem to have had the clarity of thought to see the basic good idea through to its conclusions.
Perhaps the worst example of lack of clarity in that respect is the failure to give schools and parents the power to come to local agreements sensitive to local needs. It is nonsense to assume that one home-school agreement can apply equally in the nirvana of South Holland and The Deepings, and in Buckingham.
The idea that there will not be local needs and local differences, of the sort that should lie at the very heart of the agreements, school by school and area by area, is nonsense. It provides yet another example of the Bill's giving ever-increasing powers to the Secretary of State when we should be enabling—"empowering", to use the trendy term—local people to come to flexible agreements for the benefit of schools and children.

Mrs. May: I fear that I will not be as entertaining as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) at 1.38 am, but I will address some of the issues.
The tone of this debate is developing in a better fashion than that of the debate in Committee, which was somewhat sterile. Many of the Labour members of the Committee took the view that the only way in which we could have a good working relationship between parents

and a school was if the school was required by the imposition of statutory legislation to produce a home-school agreement and a parental declaration of the parent's rights and responsibilities. As a result, we did not have an open debate about the right way forward for schools and parents.
It is important to place it on record that none of my right hon. and hon. Friends doubts the importance of the relationship between the school and the parents of the children in that school—or the relationship between the school and those bringing up the children if they are not the parents of the children. Education is best, and the achievement of the children is likely to be greatest, where there is full support for those children, not only within the school but within the home environment. We would not deny the importance of that relationship or the importance of parents and schools working together in the best interests of the children and the school. We are looking for the best approach to develop the best kind of relationship between home and school and to develop the interests of the children concerned.
Members of the Committee received a number of representations on the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in his amendments. For example, the Parent Teacher Associations of Wales wrote to Committee members, offering support for the concept of a home-school policy as opposed to home-school agreements. The associations said:
We strongly disagree with the requirement that schools need to be required by law to have home-school agreements, in conjunction with a 'parental declaration' to be signed by every parent.
The associations urged Committee members
to recognise that the development of policies on these and other matters needs to be a two-way process from the beginning. We all agree that home-school links are important, and that everyone has a role to play in stimulating them. There are many good examples of successful partnerships at school level, through which effective home-school polices have emerged. Let us help to build on the evidence of good practice, and not impose the illusion of partnership through this proposed legislation.
The term "illusion" is extremely important, because it captures what we see all too frequently in terms of the Government's proposals—they are interested in image, rather than in reality and substance.
Although the Bill gives the illusion that the Government are encouraging partnership between schools and parents, the reality is—given the law of unintended consequences—that the opposite will occur and that, because of a statutory requirement to develop home-school agreements, we will not see good practice developed. The process will become something that governing bodies feel that they have to do because they are required to do so by law. Some governing bodies may even treat the process somewhat cursorily—it may come to be seen either as a bureaucratic requirement that schools do not want, or as something that is created and then put to one side. That would not improve educational standards; it would be to the detriment of children and of the development of the relationship between schools and parents.
We also received representations from the Education Forum, which is convened by the National Consumer Council. It comprises representatives from a wide range of organisations, such as the Campaign for State Education, the Consumers Association, the National Association for Special Educational Needs, the National


Association for Primary Education and bodies from Wales and Scotland. On an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings alluded, it said:
Even the word 'agreement' implies a legal commitment. Signed agreements would undermine the process that has been made in improving home/school partnerships in many schools … The key issue is whether every school should be required to have agreements, or can choose whether or not to have them, as part of a flexible approach to developing home-school partnerships.
That is the key to why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath is wrong. As some of the groups that made representations to us argued, although a home-school policy—as opposed to a home-school agreement—could be beneficial, the hon. Gentleman's proposal would impose on schools a statutory requirement to develop such a policy.
We should develop and encourage best practice in schools, but we should allow them to develop approaches that are right for their local circumstances. Some schools might think it appropriate to develop an agreement to which parents would be asked to sign up, although such an agreement would be entirely inappropriate for other schools, as parents might not feel able to abide by the agreement.

Mr. Don Foster: I have been listening to the hon. Lady carefully, as until a moment ago she was mirroring—although at somewhat greater length—what I said on the issue. Does she believe that a school would not accept the need for some arrangement for liaison between home and school? If so, does she agree that that means that every school would accept the need for a policy of some sort?

Mrs. May: I am really concerned when the hon. Gentleman suggests that I go on at greater length than he does. I believe that the majority of schools want not an agreement, but some arrangement—I use his word—that defines their relationship with parents. However, I question whether making the development of such arrangements a statutory requirement will be to the benefit of schools and parents.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) seems to be in a state of some confusion? If he is so convinced that all schools will be persuaded of the desirability of agreements with parents, why is he so preoccupied with the need to make them a legal requirement?

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. If schools develop such arrangements in their own right, why do we need to make that a statutory requirement? As I said, the very fact that there was a statutory requirement would be detrimental to the development of arrangements that suited the local circumstances.
The Education Forum said that it was
concerned about the implications of the term 'parental responsibilities'".
As the Bill sets out the responsibilities of both the school and the parents, the forum said:

There is a danger that agreements could detail parental responsibilities in a way that some parents cannot reasonably be expected to meet e.g. because of home circumstances, their income, their own learning difficulties, or because they do not speak English adequately.
In those circumstances, it is imperative for a school to have flexibility and not to have a single agreement that every parent must sign or be stigmatised. The school should be able to determine how it should develop the relationship between school and home.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke about the legal implications. Notwithstanding the clause that says that the agreements would not be legally binding, I remain concerned that parents might assume that an agreement and a parental declaration signed by them and by the school's representative was a guarantee of a particular level of education.
Following the Labour Government's local authority settlement, many schools have had to cut such courses as music tuition. They may be unable to deliver the level of education specified in the agreement, and that may result in parental recourse to litigation, which would sour relations between parents and the school. The proposals do nothing to encourage the partnership between school and home that is so important in encouraging and enabling children to get the best out of their education.
I fear that the clause, even with the amendments, will not encourage best practice or good relationships; indeed, it will sour the relationship between parents and schools. On that basis, I remain unconvinced by the Government's proposals.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) as, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Committee sitting at which the clause was originally discussed.
Many of the regulations, conditions and proposals surrounding the Bill were presented to the Committee either at the last moment or, even worse, after clauses had been considered. So it is with this very clause. A Department for Education and Employment press release of 18 March, entitled "Morris launches plans to improve management of pupil behaviour", was issued after we had discussed the clause.
How do the clause and the amendment affect children who do not behave well—the difficult ones who, in extreme circumstances, have to be excluded from the school? We all support links between schools and parents and want to build on them, but we remain to be convinced that legislation is required to get good parents to co-operate with schools.
The weakness of the clause is that it will fail to apply to the very children who need it most, because they are often those who are not prepared to co-operate or to consider the home-school agreement closely.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I must remind him that this is not a clause stand part debate. He must direct his remarks to the amendments.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is exactly what I am going to do. Amendment No. 130, tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will exclude clause 100(3), which states:


The governing body shall take reasonable steps to secure that the parental declaration is signed by every qualifying parent.
Before we decide to exclude clause 100(3), Ministers should clarify whether it is part of the reasonable steps that a governing body should take for it to tell the parents of a pupil who is likely to be excluded, "We require you to sign this agreement, or we will go ahead and exclude your child from school." Should powers of exclusion, whether for a fixed term or on a permanent basis, be held over the heads of parents who are proving unco-operative in signing home-school agreements?
I raise that matter because, as Ministers will know, the Select Committee on Education and Employment has studied hard the problem of disaffected children, among whom we include those excluded from school. We are concerned at what measures schools may take to encourage parents to become more involved in their children's problems, and what is leading to their disaffection. Tonight, we require Ministers to clarify the interaction between home-school agreements in those cases.
That those questions have to be asked is a measure not only of the surreptitious way in which the Government's policy is evolving but of the confusion in the ministerial ranks. While they are about it, they should explain more fully their policy on exclusions. How far a school can exercise its right to exclude pupils interacts directly with its proposed home-school agreement.
When the Secretary of State came before a joint meeting of the Select Committees on Education and Employment and on Health, just over a month ago, he gave us some confusing signals as to whether he thought the powers contained in the Bill should be used to provide schools with more effective powers to exclude pupils, or whether, by making schools pay for the cost of exclusion—to paraphrase his words—he would in effect emasculate them and prevent them from using that important final sanction in the armoury of discipline that we give schools today.
If he is serious in what he told us at that hearing and he believes that schools should in certain circumstances have to bear the cost of a pupil being excluded, he will make it far harder for schools to tell the parents of such children before they reach the stage of excluding them that they want parents to sign up to a home-school agreement.
In effect, the Department's proposals would undermine the very policy of home-school agreements that it has championed. The confusion should come as no surprise.

Mr. Hayes: Is that confusion not well illustrated by the fact that the Government's position, rather like that of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is somewhat inconsistent? Originally, the Government talked about contracts that "define responsibilities". We have now moved to agreements, but the hon. Member for Bath is talking about policies.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I agree. This is another example of the Government's addiction to tokenism. When they wanted to show the world that Labour had changed and that they understood the importance of the relationship between parents and the schools that their children attend, they

said, "Let us have home-school agreements"—a great banner headline for a day. When we get down to the detail and the complications of requiring parents to sign up to those agreements, it is an entirely different matter.
Once Labour Members were in government, the impracticalities were visited on them. The Department has explained to them that the ideas that they had in opposition are simply impractical, so we are burdened with confusing clauses, such as clause 100, which do not achieve anything.

Mr. Willis: I am confused about what we are discussing. We have tabled an amendment that makes a serious commitment to changing the Bill for what we believe is the better. Will the hon. Gentleman say what he would put in the Bill to make it better, or is he arguing that the whole thing should be scrapped?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's confusion. A little while ago, I spoke to his colleague the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who said that he was so tired that he could not remember what he had said in a previous debate. I well understand the problem. It is a disgrace that we should be discussing these important matters at such a late hour. The Government refuse to make available proper time in Parliament for us to debate this in normal hours. They say that it is their flagship policy, but they want it to slip through at 2 am.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is wholly new territory. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the point.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I apologise. My vote on amendment No. 125 will depend on the Minister's answer to our points. The Government have sown the confusion, and it is up to them to clarify their position now.

2 am

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be able to speak on this group of amendments and, in particular, on clause 100, which relates to home-school agreements.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a question of "in particular". We are on clause 100 and amendments to it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is common ground that the intention behind clause 100, amended or not, is that the expectations of parents and pupils, and the aims and objectives of schools, should be better understood. The question is whether it is to be achieved by the Bill's terms and, in particular, the word "agreement", or by the amendments' terms and, in particular, the word "policy". We have been debating whether an agreement can be legally binding. I refer hon. Members to clause 101(6), which states:
A home-school agreement shall not be capable of creating any obligation in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort.
I concur, because as I understand it—I am not a lawyer—a contract must have parties, a specific performance and a consideration. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt. I do not want debate across the Floor. Hon. Members should listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was trying to describe what I understand to be the legal difference between a contract


and an agreement. A contract must have parties, specific performance and, in particular, a consideration. The word "agreement" in this context will not have a consideration, so it cannot be legally binding. I disagree with the amendments because I do not think that they are necessary. However, if they are unnecessary, perhaps the Minister can answer some questions on matters that remain unclear, whether clause 100 is amended or not.
Does the Minister envisage the provision applying to each individual pupil? Will there be different agreements for each pupil? Each pupil's need is different. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) made a point which may have been prompted by remarks that I made to him earlier, about whether home-school agreements will make any difference to the sort of pupil or parent who would not take any notice of such things. It is all very well getting people to sign an agreement, but if they have no intention of agreeing to its terms, it is completely useless.
We should have voluntary agreements. The Bill provides great detail of what the agreement should and should not contain, but it does not contain any sanctions with which to enforce the agreement. If there are no sanctions, what on earth is the use of prescribing precisely the contents of the agreement? It would be far better to make it voluntary in the first place.
I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up some of the issues that have been raised. In essence, home-school agreements are a thoroughly good idea. We all want the aims and objectives stated in clause 100(2)(a) to be clear. We all want the school's responsibility as stated in subsection (2)(b) to be clear. We all want the parental responsibilities stated in subsection (2)(c) to be clear. We all want the school's expectations of its pupils to be clear. The idea behind clause 100 is good.

Mr. Swayne: May I ask my hon. Friend the same question that I asked of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)? How does he envisage home-school agreements working? Will I as a parent negotiate an agreement specifically on behalf of my child with the head teacher, the form teacher or whomever? Or will it be negotiated between parents and the school collectively, in which case it will be not an agreement but a policy?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend touches the heart of what I am asking the Minister to deal with in her reply to the debate on this group of amendments. Will there be different home-school agreements for each pupil? If there are, it seems to me that they will be negotiated between the school and each pupil. If it is the intention that there will be just one identical home-school agreement for all the pupils in the school, of course there will be no negotiation between the parents or the pupil and the school.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend underestimates the paucity of the legislation. The debate is not just about one home-school agreement for the whole school but about the Secretary of State dictating the content and nature of agreements. Can my hon. Friend envisage the Secretary of State drawing up home-school agreements for every

child in the country? Or will we have something bland and ineffective rather than something sensitive and particular to the needs of individual children?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It would be nonsense if the Secretary of State prescribed from the centre one model home-school agreement. He might as well not bother, because it would be so bland and ineffective that it would have no import whatever. I notice that the Secretary of State has taken powers in the Bill to enable him to do just that. That would be a dangerous precedent.

Mr. Robert Walter: He has woken up.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has woken up. I did not realise that he had quite gone to sleep.
It has been made clear in the debate on whether there should be agreements or a policy, that there is all the difference in the world between the conditions, requirements and needs of my hon. Friend's schools in South Holland and The Deepings and my constituents' schools in the Cotswolds. Indeed, there is all the difference between those pupils and pupils 10 miles away in the middle of Cheltenham or Gloucester.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, much as some of us would also like to debate Welsh issues tomorrow, could we deal with the issue before us, which is the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)? May I refer the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to clause 100(2), which clearly states that it is for each school to draw up its own home-school agreement in writing? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because Ofsted inspects each school and the relationships between the school and parents, it is essential that we have a policy on that?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: When the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was trying to find the part of clause 100 that gives powers to the Secretary of State to prescribe the nature and content of home-school agreements.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Secretary of State has those powers. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) fails to appreciate that my hon. Friend is pointing out the critical and implicit difference between a contract, a partnership and a policy, which lies at the heart of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The Government started off with a contract, we are now talking about an agreement, and the hon. Member for Bath is talking about a policy. Each is different, and my hon. Friend is drawing attention to that in an appropriate and entirely apposite way.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall return to that important subject, but first I shall reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who raised the question whether the power applies to individual schools. Having had a chance to find the relevant clause, I refer him to clause 101(2), which states:
If the Secretary of State by order so provides, the governing body of a school to which subsection (1) of that section applies shall ensure that any form of words … specified in the order, or … having such effect as is so specified


and continues:
An order under subsection (2) may apply … to any school specified in the order, or … to any description of any school so specified.
Therefore, the Secretary of State can draw up home-school agreements for a specific school or for a wider section of schools if he or she so wishes.
The import of the amendments is to determine whether the clause establishes a binding agreement, a policy or merely an aspiration. That is the heart of the debate. To my mind, it should be a policy, and there should be nothing binding about the clause. If the agreement is binding, we shall start to see litigation, either of pupils or parents suing a school, or of a school suing a parent. That would be a dangerous and disadvantageous departure, which would negate the whole benefit of the clause.
I can see no reason why the school, having drawn up a prospectus as required, should not simply issue a statement of the school's aims and objectives and pupils' and parents' expectations. There could be one copy signed by the school, one by the parents and one by the pupil, so that everybody knows exactly what is expected of them. If the agreement is broken, under the clause, neither pupil, parent nor school can be sued—there are no sanctions. Why not have a simple statement of aims and objectives as I have described?

Mr. Letwin: I shall speak—briefly, at this hour—to amendment No. 125. It is a rare privilege to be able to subscribe whole-heartedly to what I take to be the import of a Liberal amendment.
Amendment No. 125 takes us to the heart of the problem with clause 100 and specifically with the adoption of home-school agreements. As I understand it, the intention of amendment No. 125 is to allow that which is adopted to be reviewed from time to time.
Let us cast our minds back to the period from which the British education system, especially our schools, is still recoiling—the 1960s. Had the Bill been law then, many schools in many parts of the country would have adopted as their "aims and values", to quote clause 100(2)(a), aims and values that would have been abhorrent to the present Secretary of State and to Labour and Conservative Members. Many schools at that time would have adopted elements of social engineering as part of their aims and values. In those circumstances, it would have been necessary for an amendment resembling amendment No. 125 to clock in.
2.15 am
As educational ideas changed—and, if I may say so, improved—it would have been necessary for schools to refine gradually the statements of aims and values contained in their home-school agreements, on a fluid basis. Had that not been possible, there would have been a perpetuation of the worst features of the educational theorising of the 1960s.
Amendment No. 125 therefore clarifies for us a danger latent in the notion of the agreements. There is every evidence from the statements made by the Secretary of State and other Ministers that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out,

the assumption underlying clause 100 is that schools, under the guidance of the present benign—as the Secretary of State no doubt believes—influence of the Department for Education and Employment, will always produce as their statements of aims and values, and indeed in every other respect, an educational elixir that will benefit all the pupils in all circumstances.
However, that assumption is not well founded. We must expect that, very often, those agreements, signed by ordinary mortals—in many cases, alas, as one gathers from a reading of the Ofsted reports, ordinary mortals not entirely able to conduct their schools in the best possible fashion—will incorporate principles repugnant to many, perhaps all, hon. Members. It is therefore of the essence that there should be a correction mechanism.
Amendment No. 125 provides at least the possibility of correction. Alas, it does not contain something that might have gone further: not merely an ability for the school to correct by reviewing its agreements if it sees fit, but a necessity for the school to review its agreements in certain circumstances. If anything, the amendment is too weak to achieve its purpose.

Mr. Swayne: On that point, does my hon. Friend accept that the primary importance for the parent is not whether the school is able to reach agreement from time to time but whether the parent is able to do so? That is the key in respect of having an agreement. I find it exasperating, but I repeat: if that is not to be the case, it is not an agreement, merely a policy.

Mr. Letwin: As usual, my hon. Friend hits a point of the greatest possible significance. These, of course, are not agreements, and for that reason the emperor's clothes have been removed by the reference to policy. For that reason, the Government will object to many of the amendments that we are currently discussing.

Mr. Hayes: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that an agreement necessarily implies obligation—or can an agreement be less formal than that?

Mr. Letwin: As my hon. Friend is not tired of pointing out in these discussions, this is not an agreement. An agreement would imply something mutual—something that is, to some degree at least, morally enforceable. What we have in the Bill is in practice a policy but, alas, without amendment No. 125, that policy is stuck in stone.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is using the term "morally enforceable". Will he explain how the agreement is actually enforceable?

Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend poses a problem that I am unable to solve, because clause 100(6) makes it clear that the agreements are not enforceable, although in a sense they might be morally enforceable. It must be the hope of the Secretary of State that, by signing the document, parents will somehow implicate themselves in the policy, and having implicated themselves will feel a moral obligation to fulfil their part of what he would describe as the bargain. The problem is that it is not a bargain, and parents have not had a choice in whether to implicate themselves. As a consequence, they cannot have morally implicated themselves and so cannot be said to have a moral obligation in any sense.
I leave aside that slight lacuna in what is actually a policy and revert to the main substance of my point.

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend may not have had a chance, at such a late hour, to read the notes on clauses, but they help to clarify the fact that there is no legal power behind the clause. They draw a helpful parallel with section 13 of the Education Act 1997—which these clauses repeal—which would allow a home-school agreement to be used as part of a school's admission process. Therefore, a child could be refused admission if his parents refused to sign the agreement.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, I did have a brief opportunity to look at the notes on clauses, but not in the detail that he was able to do during the Committee proceedings.
We should inspect in more detail the proposition that the agreement will stipulate a school's aims and values, bearing in mind that, without amendment No. 125, that would be locked in stone. It would be a useful thought experiment for the House to think ourselves into how this would have operated in the 1960s and ask ourselves how schools using a policy—misnamed an agreement—enshrining a set of aims and values repugnant to this House would have approached the question of admissions or, indeed, expulsions, to take the two ends of the possible life history of a more unfortunate pupil. Surely we all agree that enshrined here are not just wild and woolly policies, but policies that might affect the conduct of a school and its relationship with its pupils on a day-to-day basis.
I remind the House that there were individuals—Professor Ted Wragg springs to mind—who leaped to the fore in the 1960s with wide-ranging descriptions of aims and values that might have been appropriate for schools. Who knows, perhaps 20 years from now—heaven forfend—there may be the successors of Professor Wragg.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me for a second time. Surely his thesis presupposes that parents would have voluntarily entered into those agreements or, if my hon. Friend likes, policies—I prefer agreements. Surely he concedes that those misguided policies of the 1960s were not born of the will of the vast majority of ordinary hard-working, decent patriots, but of the liberal bourgeoisie who were the architects of the policies and imposed them upon the ordinary citizens of this country.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right to say that we were dealing at that time with the utmost treachery—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving rather far away from the amendments. I should be grateful if he would come back to them precisely.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful for that admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was distracted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) into territory that I should not have strayed into.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In fact, that territory does touch on an important point. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend

spoke learnedly on the question of human rights and whether a previous clause might constitute a breach of human rights—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Letwin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not be tempted to stray into that territory.
If we imagine how it would be if the clause without amendment No. 125 came into force, and if some future successor of Professor Wragg incorporated into teacher training or the general jargon of the education establishment views similar to those that he held 10 or 15 years ago and which were at that time the orthodoxy, and if those were locked in—here I refer to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that is directly germane—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman cannot address himself directly to the amendments, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Letwin: The point is directly germane to amendment No. 125, because we are dealing not with agreements, but with policies. In the absence of amendment No. 125, those policies may be locked in stone with no possibility of being revised, even though they may be repugnant to the parents who were artificially made to sign up to them.
I cannot imagine that it was the Secretary of State's intention to provide for the policies to be locked in stone. I hope that he will tell us, or that the Minister will tell us when he sums up this section of the debate, that the intent of amendment No. 125 always lay in the Government's mind—that it was the intent not merely that a policy or agreement should be adopted, but that there should be constant revision, as thoughts about education develop over time.
That is the only rational interpretation of the intent. However, the Liberal Democrat amendment clearly reveals that there is no such provision in the Bill. That is a remarkable omission. It must be a drafting omission. If so, we shall discover that when the Minister, in his summing up, accepts the amendment. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, it must be the Government's intention—which seems bizarre, but it would have to be the interpretation that the House placed on it—to insist that the terms of the so-called agreements that are actually policies, which have the appearance of being voluntary but are not, are those that the Government intend for education for eternity, or until Parliament changes its mind and enacts an amendment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes a good point in relation to amendment No. 125. With his extensive knowledge, he will recognise that ideas on education change radically, even over a period of five years, so unless the agreements were constantly updated, they would become otiose.

Mr. Letwin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. These are fast-moving matters—perhaps too fast moving. Some stability is to be hoped for. One would hope that, having adopted certain aims and values, a school would pursue them for a reasonable period. Nobody, not even


the Secretary of State, could hope that his present vision of what should be the aims and values of schools is the guide for all time. It would be a remarkable statement if the Minister rejected amendment No. 125.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I invite my hon. Friend to consider the import of all this in respect of the human rights of the parents, who might be affected by a refusal to review the policy.

Mr. Letwin: Much as I would like to answer that acute point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be tempted to stray, because of your earlier admonition.
It would be remarkable if the Government maintained that their current views of what should be in such an agreement constituted the inalienable truth—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said the same thing several times. I must ask him to resume his seat. I call Ms Estelle Morris.

Ms Estelle Morris: I should say that amendment No. 125 was at least an effort to make a positive contribution to an essential debate. In moving it, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) expressed a point of view that he and his colleagues have long held. Although we differ on that point of view, we share the belief that we have to do more to help parents to support their children.
I cannot say that the same attitude was expressed in many of the comments of Conservative Members. The sadness of that is that—as much as they filibuster and make comments that are not conducive to serious debate—we are debating the serious issue of helping parents to support their children. For too long, we have not taken action to address that important issue.
Schools can do much for children. Good schools and good teachers are essential if children are to get a good education, but we know now—all the evidence shows us—that, if a child is really to do well, they will need support also from home.
2.30 am
The Government disagree with Conservative Members who have talked in somewhat disparaging terms about parents who may not know how to help their child, or who cannot cope with that need, who turn their backs on it and who may not want to help their child. We believe that it is so important that parents support and help their children at school that we must make every effort to ensure that they can do so.
Parents have rights—some of our debates today have been on those rights—but they also have responsibilities for their child's education. A home-school agreement is, first, about stating those rights and responsibilities so that parents know where they stand. I think that parents will welcome that knowledge.
Some of the parents to whom Conservative Members have so disparagingly referred do not know what they can do to help their child, but they want to help. They want their children to do well, just as middle-class parents want—and know how to help—their children to do well. They have aspirations and ambitions for their children and

want their children to do better in school than they did themselves. Sometimes they do not know how to go about realising those ambitions. One of the advantages of a home-school agreement is that it will clearly state how parents can help their child to succeed. If they do not have an agreement, that opportunity will be lost.
Secondly, a home-school agreement is about expectations and about saying to parents, "You have rights. Society expects you to exercise those rights and to fulfil your responsibilities to your children who are in school." That is the key reason for making such agreements compulsory. For every parent, the agreement will state how they can support teachers in helping their child.
As a society and as communities, we are beginning to have high expectations of parents. For too long we have heard the type of moaning that we heard today from Conservative Members: that we cannot expect some parents to deliver the goods in supporting their children. In the interests of supporting their children, we can and we must have such expectations. The Bill's provision for home-school agreements is an attempt to establish in law the expectation that we rightly have of parents to fulfil their responsibilities to their children.
Some schools already have home-school agreements. The impact that those agreements have had on the children and communities involved shows that achieving those objectives is possible. Not only middle-class schools have home-school agreements; some schools in the toughest and most difficult areas have them. Those schools have begun to recreate a learning culture among parents in their communities. That must be our objective. It is sad that not all schools have chosen to attempt to recreate that culture.
We are clearly stating in the Bill that, in our efforts to value education and to acknowledge the essential partners in a child's learning, we will establish an expectation that parents have both rights and responsibilities. We will also explain how they can help to fulfil their responsibilities for their child.
It is quite clear in the Bill that we do not want to have to take criminal or other legal action or to disrupt a child's education because a parent will not sign an agreement. The agreements are about an expectation and about creating a situation in which parents know that they are doing something on behalf of their child.
There is much in the Bill that will serve to raise standards for every child. If we are serious about that, we must also tackle the role that parents can play. There is an honest difference of opinion between us, but the matter is so important that it cannot be left to chance. Our proposals are set out in clauses 100 and 101. As soon as the Bill is enacted, we intend to ensure that the education service sets out rights and responsibilities for all the essential educators, in the interests of the child. They are important clauses dealing with the responsibilities and rights of parents and teachers; they work in the interests of children and they will raise standards. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Don Foster: As the Minister said, there is an honest difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on this issue, but it is an honest disagreement about how we achieve something


that we both regard as vital. I entirely agree with her about the unhelpful contributions made by Conservative Members—

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons I will not give way is that during one of the hon. Gentleman's numerous interventions my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) asked what he would suggest, given that he was so critical of the Liberal Democrats' and the Government's proposals, but the hon. Gentleman had no answer.

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. Foster: I have made it absolutely clear that I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am a new Member, will you explain to me whether it is in order for one hon. Member to attack another but not give him the right to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not so new any more, and knows the rules of debate.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) is not so naive that he was not able to intervene, I think, 14 times on other hon. Members.
Home-school arrangements are vital, whether they are called contracts, agreements or policies. The relationship between home and school is very important. Research into what raises standards in schools shows that the quality of the head teacher nearly always comes first, but high on the list is the relationship between home and school.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the most important aspect of the relationship between home and school is the building of that relationship rather than the product, or the simple piece of paper itself. The Government are concentrating predominantly on the piece of paper, which has to be signed so early that there will be no real opportunity for the signatories to it to have time to be involved in its development and to feel ownership of it. However, as the Minister said, that is an honest disagreement between us. As I hope that there will be opportunities to work constructively with the Government on developing their thinking, and perhaps ours, on the issue as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, but I wonder whether there has been a breach of privilege by The Independent. In what is now today's edition, the newspaper reports a debate on corporal punishment in independent schools, which has not yet taken place. It quotes extensively the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) who have not yet made their contributions. I pass the newspaper to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and would be grateful if, during the debate on the next group

of amendments, you might consider whether it and the hon. Gentlemen have breached the privilege of this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise the question of a breach of privilege, the normal procedure is to write to Madam Speaker. I suggest that he do that.

Mr. Don Foster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have dealt with the matter adequately.

Schedule 2

ALLOCATION OF EXISTING SCHOOLS TO NEW CATEGORIES

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 102, leave out lines 20 and 21.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 3

FUNDING OF FOUNDATION, VOLUNTARY AND FOUNDATION SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 103, line 4, leave out 'new'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 to 38, 52, 53, 39 to 41, 43, 29, 44 to 46, 30, 54 and 55.

Mr. Byers: This may appear to be a considerable body of Government amendments, but they are technical. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 103, line 31, at end insert—
'and for the purposes of any agreed determination under subparagraph (6) regard shall be had to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.'.

No. 34, in page 103, line 36, leave out
'The Secretary of State shall not make a determination'
and insert
'A determination may be made'.

No. 35, in page 103, line 38, leave out 'unless' and insert 'if (and only if)—

(a) the determination is made by the Secretary of State, and
(b)".

No. 36, in page 106, line 16, leave out 'maintained' and insert 'appropriate'.

No. 37, in page 106, line 29, leave out 'is the greater' and insert
'the Secretary of State determines to be just'.

No. 38, in page 106, line 40, at end insert—
appropriate schools"—

(i) in relation to a voluntary aided school having a religious character, means schools which are either foundation or voluntary schools and whose specified religion or religious denomination under section 65(4) is the same as that school's, and
(ii) in relation to any other voluntary aided school, means maintained schools.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 4

SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEES

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 109, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—
'3.—(1) For the purpose of the payment of financial loss allowance under section 173(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that provision shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to any member of a committee as it applies to any member of a parish or community council; and a committee shall be included in the bodies to which section 174 of that Act (travelling and subsistence allowances) applies.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

Ms Morris: These, too, are technical amendments. They are intended to ensure that the admission exclusion appeal panels of school organisation committees fall within the scope of section 173 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6

STATUTORY PROPOSALS: PROCEDURE AND IMPLEMENTATION

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 118, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
'(a) in the case of proposals published under section 27(2) so far as relating to the provision of any relevant premises for the school, by the local education authority;
(b) in the case of proposals published under section 28(2), by the governing body and the authority; and
(c) otherwise by the governing body.'.
No. 53, in page 118, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
'(a) so far as relating to the provision of any relevant premises for the school (but subject to sub-paragraph (5)), by the local education authority; and
(b) otherwise by the promoters.'.
No. 39, in page 120, line 7, at end insert—
'and for the purposes of any agreed determination under subparagraph (5) regard shall be had to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.'.
No. 40, in page 120, line 12, leave out
The Secretary of State shall not make a determination'
and insert
'A determination may be made'.
No. 41, in page 120, line 14, leave out 'unless' and insert 'if (and only if)—
(a) the determination is made by the Secretary of State, and
(b)".—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 8

CHANGES OF CATEGORY OF SCHOOL

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 131, line 9, at end insert—

'(aa) where a foundation is proposed to be established for the school otherwise than under this Act, that the foundation would meet such requirements as may be so specified;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Byers: These, too, are technical amendments, intended to tidy up the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 131, line 20, leave out
'approved under regulations under this Schedule'
and insert 'published under paragraph 2'.
No. 13, in page 131, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—
'(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may, in connection with any matters falling within that sub-paragraph—
(a) modify any provision made by or under this Part of this Act;
(b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;
(c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I want to speak to amendment No. 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do so. All the amendments in the group have already been discussed.

Schedule 10

INCORPORATION OF GOVERNING BODIES

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 138, line 8, after first 'school', insert
'(other than a grouped school)'.
No. 15, in page 138, line 12, leave out from 'day' to 'conform' in line 14 and insert
'the governing body shall (subject to regulations under subparagraph (4))'.
No. 16, in page 138, line 16, after 'shall' insert
'(subject to regulations under sub-paragraph (4))'.
No. 17, in page 138, line 17, leave out
'end of such period as may be prescribed'
and insert
'appointed day; and regulations may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reconstitution of a governing body in pursuance of this sub-paragraph.'.
No. 18, in page 138, leave out lines 18 to 24 and insert—
'(4) Regulations may, in relation to cases where—
(a) the instrument of government required by paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 in the case of an existing school within sub-paragraph (2) above is not made by the appointed day, or
(b) the governing body of such a school are not reconstituted by that day,
make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with any of the following matters, namely—


(i) the making of such instruments of government on or after that day,
(ii) the reconstitution of governing bodies on or after that day, and
(iii) the constitution of such bodies on and after that day pending their reconstitution at some later date.
(5) Regulations may, in relation to existing schools which are grouped schools, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the transition of such schools from being grouped under a single governing body to having their own governing bodies constituted under instruments of government made in accordance with Schedule 12.
(5A) If the instrument of government required by paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 is not made before the appointed day in the case of an existing school, the following requirements, namely—
(a) the requirements of paragraph 2(1) below as to the name of the governing body, and
(b) the requirements of section 36(3) as to the name of the school,
shall not apply until such time as that instrument of government is made.'.
No. 19, in page 138, line 25, after 'means' insert '(subject to sub-paragraph (7))'.
No. 20, in page 138, line 29, at end insert
'; and "grouped school" means a school grouped under section 89 or 280 of the Education Act 1996.'.
No. 21, in page 138, line 29, at end insert—
'(7) A school is not an existing school for the purposes of this paragraph if immediately before the appointed day—
(a) in the case of a school within paragraph (a) of subparagraph (6), it has a temporary governing body, or
(b) in the case of a school within paragraph (b) of that subparagraph, it has a governing body but it has not yet opened;
and for this purpose a school "opens" on the date when it first admits pupils.
(8) Regulations may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the transition of—
(a) any such school as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (7)(a) or (b), or
(b) any proposed school which would be a school within sub-paragraph (6)(a) and which has, or is required to have, a temporary governing body,
to a school with a governing body constituted under an instrument of government made in accordance with Schedule 12.'.
No. 22, in page 138, line 29, at end insert—
'(9) Regulations under any provision of this paragraph may, in connection with any matters falling within that provision—
(a) modify any provision made by or under this Part of this Act;
(b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;
(c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision;
(d) provide for the continued application of any provision of Part II or III of the Education Act 1996 with or without modifications.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 11

MEMBERSHIP AND PROCEEDINGS ETC. OF GOVERNING BODIES

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 141, line 4, at end insert—

'(4) The regulations may authorise or require governing bodies to make provision with respect to any matters relating to their meetings or proceedings (including any of the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)).
(5) Subject to the regulations, a governing body may regulate their own procedure and that of any of their committees.'
No. 67, in page 141, line 21, at end insert
', and the payment of allowances to a governor at any such time shall instead be in accordance with a scheme made by the local education authority for the purposes of section 519 of the Education Act 1996.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 12

INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 143, line 2, leave out from 'section' to 'modifications' in line 3 and insert
'(Arrangements for government of new schools) for a new maintained school,'.

No. 23, in page 145, line 24, after 'be' insert or is,'.

No. 24, in page 145, line 28, at end insert
',including provision modifying any provision of this Schedule or Schedule 9'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 16

STAFFING OF COMMUNITY, VOLUNTARY CONTROLLED AND COMMUNITY SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 155, line 41, after 'and', insert
',where the post is that of head teacher,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 69.

Ms Morris: The amendments seek to correct an error in the original drafting and limit to head teacher posts the local authority's entitlement to make representations to the governing body's selection panel.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 17

STAFFING OF FOUNDATION, VOLUNTARY AIDED AND FOUNDATION SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 69, in page 163, line 42, after 'and', insert
',where the post is that of head teacher,'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 18

APPEALS AGAINST EXCLUSION OF PUPILS

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 170, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert—
'3.—(1) For the purpose of the payment of financial loss allowance under section 173(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that provision shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to any member of an appeal panel constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 as it applies to any member of a parish or community council; and such an appeal panel shall be included in the bodies to which section 174 of that Act (travelling and subsistence allowances) applies.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 22

FOUNDATION, VOLUNTARY AND FOUNDATION SPECIAL SCHOOLS: DISPOSAL OF LAND AND DISCONTINUANCE

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 180, leave out lines 42 and 43.

No. 29, in page 181, line 11, leave out 'within the meaning of and insert 'as defined by'.

No. 44, in page 181, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) If a voluntary aided school was, immediately before the appointed day, a controlled school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, this paragraph also applies to any disposal by the trustees of the school of any land acquired, or enhanced in value, wholly or partly by means of expenditure incurred under section 63 or 64 of that Act.'.

No. 45, in page 181, line 13, leave out
'(b), (c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (1)'
and insert
'(c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (1A)'.

No. 46, in page 181, line 14, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'provision'.

No. 30, in page 181, line 36, leave out 'within the meaning of' and insert 'as defined by'.

No. 54, in page 181, line 40, leave out
'hold the proceeds of disposal on trust'
and insert
'use the proceeds of disposal'.

No. 103, in page 182, line 4, at end insert—
'(10) Where the trustees of a foundation, voluntary or foundation special school wish, in the case of any land held by them for the purposes of the school, to use the land for purposes not connected with the provision of education in maintained schools—
(a) the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply as if any such change of use of the land were a disposal of the land; and
(b) the value of the land as at the date of any determination under sub-paragraph (2) or of any direction under subparagraph (7) shall be treated as proceeds of the disposal of the land.'.

No. 104, in page 183, line 27, leave out '29' and insert '29(1)'.

No. 105, in page 183, line 28, leave out 'on' and insert 'in relation to'.

No. 106, in page 183, line 30, leave out 'on'.
No. 107, in page 183, leave out line 39 and insert 'public expense'.

No. 108, in page 183, line 44, leave out from 'at' to end of line 45 and insert 'public expense'.

No. 109, in page 183, line 45, at end insert—
'(2A) In sub-paragraph (2) "at public expense" means at the expense of—
(a) the Funding Agency for Schools, or
(b) any local education authority or an authority within section 29(2)(c).'.

No. 110, in page 184, line 2, leave out
'the use of land as'
and insert
'any such change of use of the land as is'.

No. 55, in page 184, line 25, leave out 'them' and insert 'the governing body'.

No. 111, in page 184, line 32, at end insert—

'Notice by trustees terminating foundation or voluntary school's occupation of existing site

7A.—(1) This paragraph applies where trustees have given a notice falling within section 29(11) which is effective to terminate a foundation or voluntary school's occupation of any land ("the relevant premises").
(2) If any expenditure has been incurred on the relevant premises as mentioned in section 29(2)(a) to (c), the Secretary of State may impose any requirements that he thinks just—

(a) in respect of the repayment by the trustees of all or part of any such expenditure which was incurred by him;
(b) in respect of the transfer by the trustees to the local education authority of the whole or part of the relevant premises where he is satisfied the authority will need them for any purpose connected with education;
(c) (to the extent that the relevant premises are to be so transferred) in respect of the payment by the authority to the trustees of so much of the value of those premises as is just having regard to the extent to which the premises were provided otherwise than at public expense;
(d) (to the extent that the relevant premises are not to be so transferred) in respect of the payment by the trustees to the authority of so much of the value of those premises as is just having regard to the extent to which they were provided at public expense.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) "at public expense" means at the expense of—

(a) the Funding Agency for Schools, or
(b) any local education authority or an authority within section 29(2)(c).'.

No. 77, in page 184, line 38, leave out from '"disposal" to end of line 39 and insert 'includes a compulsory disposal;'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 24

ADMISSION APPEALS

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 192, leave out lines 40 to 47 and insert—
'4.—(1) For the purpose of the payment of financial loss allowance under section 173(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that provision shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to any member of an appeal panel constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 (or in accordance with paragraph 2 as it applies by virtue of paragraph 3) as it applies to any member of a parish or community council; and such an appeal panel shall be included in the bodies to which section 174 of that Act (travelling and subsistence allowances) applies.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

New clause 5

PARTNERSHIP SCHEMES

'.—(1) In discharging its obligations under Section 78(1) of this Act a Local Education Authority shall ensure that parents of children in the area of the authority are able to express their preferences without regard to whether a school is a maintained school or an independent school.

(2) If, under Clause 78(1)(a), a parent expresses a preference for their child to attend an independent school, and the headteacher of the independent school expresses a willingness to accept the child as a pupil at the school, the local education authority may introduce a scheme of support (to be known for the purposes of this section as a partnership scheme) to allow the fees or expenses which are payable in respect of the child's attendance at the school to be met in whole or in part from the funds available to the local education authority, provided that the condition set out in sub-section (3) of this section is satisfied.

(3) In the exercise of the power conferred on a local education authority under this section, the authority shall ensure that the public funds which are committed to support a partnership scheme are fair, having regard to the factors or criteria which that local authority takes into account when determining school budget share of maintained schools under section 45 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Assisted places scheme—
'.—Notwithstanding the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 any pupil who was attending a former participating school (within the meaning of that Act) on May 1st 1997 and in respect of whom the fees or charges of the school were being met in whole or in part from public funds under the terms of the assisted places scheme shall be entitled to continue support until the end of their education.'.
New clause 9—Charitable provision—
'.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a charity from reimbursing either
(a) a primary or secondary non-maintained school; or
(b) a local education authority
in respect of the fees or related charges or expenses of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school (whether inside or outside their area)
(2) Expenditure by a charity in making a reimbursement under subsection (1) above shall be charitable expenditure, within the meaning of section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.'.
New clause 10—Partnership provision—
'.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from reimbursing any primary or secondary non-maintained school (whether inside or outside their area) in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.
(2) The fees of any pupil reimbursed under subsection (1) may be reasonable fees in respect of—
(a) courses of academic study in a specific subject or a range of subjects; or
(b) courses in music, drama, ballet; or
(c) games including football, cricket, tennis, swimming, athletics
attended by such pupil's selected by reference to his or her particular aptitude and ability.
(3) The parents of any pupil benefiting from payments under this section shall be free to choose either at their own expense or with the aid of charitable reimbursement as provided in section (Charitable provision) to maintain such pupil's at such primary or secondary non-maintained schools for the balance of such pupil's education if the parents believe it is the best interests of such pupils to do so having regard to the continuity of his or her study and the consistency of his or her environment.
(4) No local education authority shall be under any obligation to make any payment in respect of any individual pupil under this section and an authority shall be entitled to restrict such payments by reference to household income (or such other measure of parental means that is deemed appropriate) as well as by reference to the ability and aptitude of a pupil.
(5) This section shall not apply to any pupil with special educational needs, as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996.
(6) Assistance under the terms of the section shall be known as Partnership Provision.'.

Amendment No. 92, in clause 118, page 87, line 24, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2)'.
Amendment No. 94, in page 87, line 24, after '(2)' insert
'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996'.
Amendment No. 93, in page 87, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 10 on page 88.
Amendment No. 95, in page 87, line 36, after 'pupil', insert 'with Special Educational Needs'.
Amendment No. 96, in page 87, line 37, after 'prescribed', insert
'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs'.
Amendment No. 97, in page 87, line 38, after 'Regulations', insert
'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs'.
Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.

Mr. Dorrell: If Ministers and I agree nothing else about the amendments, I suspect that we will agree that they are the very opposite of technical. The group dealing with partnership schemes concerns a major issue of principle between the Conservative party and the Government and their supporters.
The amendments bring together a number of different aspects of the issue and pose a choice. They bring together, first, the scope of the choice that should be open to parents in making a choice about the school in which their child will be educated; secondly, the scope of the Government's commitments in advance of the general election on the operation of the assisted places scheme and to children who took places on that scheme; and thirdly, the scope of discretion that should be open to a local education authority to offer support to children benefiting from education in an independent school.
Underlying all that is a key question of principle: whether the Government favour, as they say they do, an inclusive vision of education that holds out to every child from whatever background the prospect of a choice between independent and maintained-school education, or whether they intend to continue with the policy, which has motivated their actions since 1 May, of a sharp, indeed enhanced, division between the independent sector and the maintained sector—the further development of a state of affairs that has been described by George Walden as one country, two systems.
George Walden's book, which analyses what is good and bad about Britain's schools system, emphasises the damage that is done to the provision of schools education by the continued deep divide between the independent system, to which, in the Government's vision, a family can aspire only if they can afford to pay the fees, and the maintained system.
The new clauses and amendments seek to challenge the Government's view that the two systems should be kept entirely separate, and offer a variety of ways in which the Government's inclusive rhetoric can be turned into reality for families to whom the Secretary of State is effectively saying in the policies that he has espoused since coming to office, "I, the Secretary of State, am in favour of inclusion, but not in favour of including you in the choice that is available to other families in Britain." We on the Conservative Benches are clear. We are in favour of all


families having choice; we are in favour of variety; and we are in favour of a system of support in education that gives real effect to the Government's rhetoric about inclusiveness.
That is why we have tabled new clause 5, which would require a local authority, when collecting the preferences of parents on the school that they want their children to go to—a process that is rightly foreshadowed in clause 78—to allow parents to express a preference not only for a maintained school, but for an independent school in the area. If a parent expressed a preference for an independent school and the head teacher of that school was prepared to accept the child on the basis of a use of funds that was fair in the context of the rest of the funding of maintained education in that local education authority, the LEA should have the power to support that child's education in that independent school. That is an important principle. I deeply regret the Government's approach to the assisted places scheme, which flew in the opposite direction. The new clause would give real effect to the ambition, which the Secretary of State is fond of quoting, of providing inclusive educational prospects for all children.
The argument used against the assisted places scheme—that it is an unfair allocation of resources—is not open to the Secretary of State in response to the new clause, because the new clause would explicitly empower the LEA to provide support to a child's education following the expression of parental preference if the use of resources was fair in the context of other resource decisions in the area. I have discussed that principle with representatives of independent schools. Not every independent school would offer places on that basis, but there is a good prospect that some would wish to do so. The argument that the Government like to use against the assisted places scheme is not available to them in response to new clause 5. It is a challenge to the Government to make real their rhetoric about inclusiveness.
If the Government do not respond to that challenge, we shall see the true substance of the rhetoric that the Minister for School Standards—who has absented himself from the Chamber—is fond of using about the importance of a partnership between public and private sector. He likes going to assemblies of independent schools and holding out the prospect of improved co-operation between the public and private sector. He has even attached £500,000 to improving that co-operation.
The new clause will flush out the Secretary of State. Does the partnership that he envisages involve simply the crumbs that fall from the table of those who can afford to pay the fees for independent schools, or is he prepared to offer children of parents who cannot afford the fees the real choice that is available under his proposals only to those who can afford the fees?
Perhaps the Secretary of State agrees with Mr. Doug McAvoy, who clearly thinks that only education provided in a maintained school should be supported from taxpayers' funds. I do not understand the logic of that. Suppose that taxpayers' funds are available to provide the best possible education for a child and the parents choose to have that child educated at an independent school, which is prepared to accept the child. Provided that the resource consequences are fair in the context of the decisions of the LEA, on what basis do the Government

reject the principle of new clause 5? That is the first important principle that arises from this group of new clauses and amendments.
The second important principle relates to new clause 6, which deals with the argument whether children who were accepted on to the assisted places scheme before its abolition should be able to look forward to the planned completion of the course of education for which they were accepted.
The House will know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who was the Labour party spokesman on school standards before the election, wrote at that time to many parents making it clear that any child accepted for an assisted place at a school that offered education up to the age of 13 could expect to be able to complete that education.
We failed to persuade the Secretary of State to accept the principle in the Kilfoyle letter and write it into the Act that abolished assisted places, so we now seek to bring him back to the issue. He said at the time, "Trust me; trust our discretion," but then refused, even on the basis of his discretion, to give the firm assurance that any child accepted for an assisted place at a school which in the normal course of events would offer education to the age of 13 would be able to complete his or her education in that school.
That commitment was given repeatedly and officially on behalf of the Labour party before the general election. Now the Secretary of State should at last recognise that it is an election pledge which, as the law stands, the Government have already broken.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 address the effect of clause 118 as it emerged from the Standing Committee. That clause was a late addition to the Bill; I believe that it was added to the Bill at the Committee's last sitting. It was prompted by an attack by Mr. Doug McAvoy of the National Union of Teachers on a scheme being promoted by Surrey county council, which planned to offer an arrangement similar to the one I described when I was talking about new clause 5.
Surrey made it clear that it wanted to offer to children from every background a real choice, including the choice of an independent education. Doug McAvoy opposed the idea because he said that it would take funds away from the maintained sector and allocate them to the independent sector.
Mr. McAvoy seemed unaware that the funds under the Surrey county council scheme would have been used to support the education of Surrey residents, exactly as they would have been if they had been spent in maintained schools. He did not seem to know, either, that the council had made it clear that its scheme, like new clause 5, was designed to offer nothing more than support similar to that available for the education of children within the maintained school system.
The effect of clause 118 as drafted is to give the Secretary of State the power to declare that scheme illegal. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept new clause 5, which would write in the principles of the Surrey scheme and make it a national arrangement. Because I believe in inclusive education, I think that it would be a good scheme to introduce in county council areas in general.
If the Secretary of State is not willing to do that, I hope that he will at least accept amendments Nos. 92 and 93, the effect of which would be to remove the threat to the


Surrey county council scheme. He could do that on the basis that discretion should be left to LEAs. We have heard a great deal about the importance of LEAs in the Government's, and the Secretary of State's, vision. I hope that he will believe his own rhetoric about LEAs, local discretion and local decision-making and allow Surrey county council to follow up its own choice.
This is a key group of amendments. We favour partnership schemes, designed to break down the divisions between the maintained and independent sectors. That is why we tabled new clause 5. As a second choice, we believe that the Government should accept the amendments we have tabled to clause 118 to allow the Surrey county council scheme to go ahead. Most important of all, we believe that the Government should be held to the election pledge made, on behalf of the Labour party, in the Kilfoyle letter.
I challenge the Secretary of State to accept the new clause and the amendments, because they are consistent with his words. If he does not accept them, we can only conclude that his rhetoric should be disbelieved and that we should look only at his actions, which, in important respects, are at variance with his words.

3 am

Mr. Brady: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), and I wish to refer to a specific local example which sheds light on these matters. St. Bede's college in Manchester is an independent Catholic grammar school, and Trafford borough council—and Cheshire county council before it—have, since the second world war, funded the provision of places for local Catholic children in the borough of Trafford at St. Bede's.
It throws light on the attitude of the Labour party and the Government that, now that Trafford borough council is Labour-controlled—for the first time in its history—it has decided to end that provision, in spite of the fact that the circumstances which my right hon. Friend described appertain exactly; the school has offered places to the local authority at exactly the same cost as the places in maintained schools. There is no financial benefit to the local authority from scrapping the scheme. It is simply an ideological attack on the principle of selective and independent schools, and shows a negative attitude to partnership.
The provision of places at St. Bede's is actually cheaper for the local authority, because there are no capital costs for the local authority—unlike at maintained schools. I am keen to support new clause 5 and the amendments, because the other parties—and I am pleased to say, in this instance, that that includes the Liberal Democrats in Trafford—are supporting partnership and choice, and opposing the Labour party's regressive thinking on this matter.
The Conservative and Liberal parties have pledged to restore the scheme when they take control of Trafford borough council. I am concerned that clause 118 could be used to prevent that, and I seek an assurance that that will not be the case. I strongly urge the House to support the new clause, to prevent any attempt to stop the reintroduction of that scheme if the local population vote for it.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I, too, support new clauses 5 and 6. I also want to speak to new clauses 9 and 10, which

I tabled. We are talking about serious issues of trust. Ministers should be on the Front Bench to answer questions about what they said, day in and day out, in Committee. The moment they knew that they would be asked to explain their comments—which are recorded in Hansard—they ran away.

Mr. Blunkett: I shall not detain the House, but I want it put on the record that my ministerial colleagues, having been on the Front Bench almost continuously for the past 11 hours, deserve a break to get a cup of tea and relieve themselves. The silly nonsense that we hear from Conservative Members illustrates the utter contempt in which they hold standards and children's education.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I have not been a Member of Parliament for long, so perhaps this will carry less weight than if it were said by someone else, but I have rarely heard such a ridiculous statement by a Minister. It ill behoves the Secretary of State to try to disguise the fact—which everyone knows—that his ministerial colleagues made remarks on this issue that, after slipping clause 118 into the Bill at the last moment in Committee, they cannot now defend. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) is now back in the Chamber—I hope that she will resume her seat on the Front Bench.
As I said, we are discussing an important issue, which goes to the heart of the question whether we should trust anything that the Ministers say. They are asking us to take much on trust, as so much in the Bill is to be governed by regulations that will be issued and reviewed long after the Bill is enacted.
It is fitting that we should be discussing partnership schemes at 3 am, because last year we debated the assisted places scheme at a similar hour of the morning. That was another occasion on which the Government did not give sufficient time for proper consideration of an issue that affects so many children—nearly 400 in my constituency alone. In the last stages of that discussion, I tabled amendments similar to new clauses 9 and 10, but I was persuaded by the Minister's response to withdraw them.
New clause 9 would encourage and enable charities to top up the fees of a child at an independent school where the cost would exceed the standard spending assessment for a child at a maintained school in the area. Last year, I accepted the right of the new Government—although I did not agree with them—to claim back the £1,000 more that it cost on average to send a child to an independent school through the assisted places scheme rather than to a maintained school, and to use that money towards the costs of teachers in other parts of the education service. However, I tabled the new clause because I believe that we should allow charities to step into the breach. In that case, the assisted places scheme, or a version of it, could continue in areas where it had popular support, without doing so at the expense of the Government's objective of finding more money for primary school teachers.
The equivalent of new clause 10 in the Education (Schools) Bill would have ensured that councils had the power to go ahead with a new version of the assisted places scheme. The Minister for School Standards said:
I intend to ask the Committee to reject new clause 2, because it is unnecessary to include its provisions in the Bill, given that … Regulations … made under section 518 of the Education Act 1996,


already give LEAs the discretion to pay the whole or part of tuition fees … and other expenses relating to the attendance of a pupil at a fee-paying school.
He went on:
If the local authority wants to use the money that it raises locally for this purpose, that is for it to decide. It will be held accountable by Surrey people, if that is how it wants to spend money from the education budget. The authority has the freedom to exercise that power".—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1008.]
Emboldened by the Minister's statement, I felt no need to press the motion to a vote, and I went back to Surrey and discussed the matter with the chairman of the county council's education committee. After taking expert advice, we developed a scheme that we believed was a great improvement: a development of what was best in the assisted places scheme and in the rhetoric that we were hearing from the Government about building partnership between independent and state schools.
Nearly one in five children in Surrey go to independent schools, and it is especially important for us to build bridges between those schools and the state sector. It so happened that our scheme came to fruition when the Bill was in Committee, so I took advantage of its approval by the county council to announce it to the Committee, and to seek endorsement from Ministers for what we were trying to do.
I said:
The Education (Schools) Act 1997 … was a retrograde step away from more partnership between the public and private sectors. Since then … it was agreed to create a new partnership scheme in Surrey between independent schools and the state sector.
I sought the reaction of the Minister for School Standards and his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Yardley, who said:
The Department looks forward to receiving details of those plans and to hearing how children can be given more opportunities than at present. That is exactly the sort of co-operation that we want to see".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 February 1998; c. 346–47.]
I was so delighted by that response that I sought confirmation from the hon. Lady, who said:
we welcome the partnership that is clearly being made in Surrey with the private sector; that is exactly what we want in the interests of children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 February 1998; c. 351.]
So, there we have it—the endorsement of the principle by the Minister for School Standards, and the endorsement of our scheme, when it is approved, by his ministerial colleague. We feel that we are going places. We have a scheme that will be greatly to the benefit of children in Surrey.
We have heard the rhetoric from Labour Members about how, through their new education action zones, they will get companies such as Proctor and Gamble involved in education—a field that the company has not previously entered to any great extent. We thought, why not get the royal grammar school in Guildford involved, as it has been in the business of education for more than 500 years and might have a thing or two to teach other schools in the area, given that it is often the best performing school in the country by many measures?
3.15 am
So we thought that we were on to a good thing, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood pointed out, we heard from the other side of the Labour Government. Something that we have learnt the hard way in Committee is that there are two sides to this Government. This is the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Administration. If they drink the right potion, one hears the right noises, but when they make the decisions they often reach into that other cabinet and drink potion B—then the lesson is, "Watch out!" I fear that one Minister—I would not like to say which one—had drunk deep of potion B before the Government came up with clause 118.

Mr. Willis: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has been drinking, but it is certainly something of the night. Will he confirm the reality of these amendments, and in particular new clause 5? If it were adopted, the public sector would make a huge subsidy to every child in a private school throughout the country. Will he confirm that that is really the intention—a huge transfer of funds from the public sector to subsidise the private sector?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I hesitate even to attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman, because he clearly has not been listening to what I have been saying. I clearly described the Surrey scheme. Any additional costs—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I said that, under the Surrey scheme, any additional cost over the standard spending assessment would be met from outside charitable sources.
Local education authorities can now spend money in ways that we all would agree would be unreasonable. We do not object to reasonable constraints on the way in which councils spend their money, but let us not forget that children in my county are costing the local ratepayers £80,000 a year because they are in care, and there are many more costing at least £20,000 a year. Some children in our society require us to spend a great deal more per year than the standard spending assessment. Those powers would remain with the local education authority, even after the enactment of the Bill without amendment.

Mr. Willis: Probably it is the lateness of the hour and the fact that I am getting old, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 5 basically states that parents can choose to send their child to an independent school if they wish to do so, and that the cost to the local authority would be the average cost of sending them to a state school—

Mr. St. Aubyn: I will quickly answer the point for the hon. Gentleman. He should refer to new clause 5(3). If he reads it carefully, he will understand where we are coming from. I think that we need to move on, because this is a very sterile debate.

Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is that new clause 5(2) makes it clear that the local authority could meet the cost
in whole or in part"—


the purpose being that it would meet it in part, or indeed not at all, according to a means test similar to that provided for under the assisted places scheme. So the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I refer the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to new clause 10, which may be more to his liking, and which follows the new clauses that I proposed last year. I particularly refer him to new clause 9, which exactly mirrors the one that he and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) supported when I tabled it last summer. I was alarmed to hear from the hon. Member for Bath that he has become so tired that he cannot decide whether to support the proposal again this evening. I was sorry to hear that, but not surprised, given the confusion among the Liberals.
New clause 10 is a menu, and I invite the Minister to say how far down it he is prepared to go. I hope that the Minister is listening, because the education of children—for which, apparently, there is some support among Labour Members—is important. The menu includes buying lessons from the independent sector for a child that needs them.
Do the Government support the principle that, if a school cannot provide classes in Japanese or Latin, and it has a pupil with a particular aptitude or need to learn them, the LEA may help the pupil by buying that provision, and, at the same time, building bridges with the independent sector? Does he accept that the same should apply to courses in music, drama and ballet? Should it not apply to games such as football and cricket, where a school may have particular expertise? Does he support the principle of parental choice?
The Minister for School Standards said that his objection to grammar schools was that schools make the choice, not the parents. We invite him to support a scheme that gives parental choice. Does he agree that the parents of a child who has been favoured by support from a local education authority in having some lessons bought in from an independent school should also be able, possibly with charitable help, to buy the rest of that child's education provision at the same school out of their own resources? There is a logic to what we are asking the Government to support, and it is dictated by the needs of children, not only in Surrey but in other parts of country.
Only last night, Bromley council considered a similar scheme. It has found that the demand for places means that, if assisted places are abolished, it will have to meet not only the standard spending assessment of pupils coming back into the state sector but the capital cost of new classrooms. The Government have not provided the necessary money for that.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sniggering lack of interest of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen is only what the people of Surrey have come to expect from the Labour Government? Does he further agree that people in Surrey and all over the country will look carefully at how the Liberal Democrats vote? This is a test of the Government's commitment to partnership in education that people in Surrey will hope the Liberal Democrats do not fail. The Conservatives will stand up for their interests.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is disappointing that Labour and Liberal Members seem to think that this is a joke. The fact is that it involves the education of thousands of children and building the sort of bridges between independent and state provision that everyone claims that they favour. If they do, they must support our amendment.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my hon. Friend see any analogy with the bridge built between the Prime Minister—a product of independent education—and the Deputy Prime Minister, who, of course, is not?

Mr. St. Aubyn: That is an avenue down which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to travel. Nor may we consider why the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), is not present.
We know that Labour Members have a hidden constraint on the way in which they vote tonight. They have the constraint of the union vote. They have the constraint of the unions telling them that they are against the type of scheme that we suggest. We may be sure that, if Labour Members go through the No Lobby, it will be due not only to the potions that they have been drinking but to the message that they have been imbibing from their union paymasters.
I am mystified by the statements that I read out from the Minister earlier in the year, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has highlighted the mystery of them. I suggest that they consider their position carefully. We heard from the Minister for School Standards that he was all in favour of Surrey making up its own mind. Now he is introducing regulations that we have not even seen today at this late stage of considering the Bill. Even now, we have no idea what the regulations will do, and how they will affect us. In the meantime, if children are to participate in a partnership scheme in Bromley, Surrey or other parts of the country, decisions have to be made today.
Decisions about where children go in the autumn have to be made at this time of year. The delay, which may suit the political purposes of Labour Members, is at the expense of children who saw themselves knocking at the door of opportunity when the schemes were put forward in good faith after the statement by the Minister last summer. Now they find the very same Minister blocking their path, because he dare not show his hand before the Bill is passed.
With this amendment, we invite the Minister to show his hand. He owes it to those children, as he does to the House, to explain the behaviour of his Department in the light of statements made by him and his colleagues. I urge all those who support the principles of the amendments to support the one on which we shall vote.

Mr. Blunkett: I wish the shadow Secretary of State a happy birthday. If I had had this inflicted on me on my birthday by my Whips and business managers, I would genuinely believe that they had got it in for me. I can only presume that it is because he has been doing too much work on a Monday and Friday in his family business, but someone has certainly got it in for the shadow Secretary of State.
We have been debating Report and Third Reading now for almost 20 hours. It is a long period, and I do not intend to keep the House on this set of new clauses and amendments. I shall seek formally to move Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
We debated the issues last summer, and a Bill received Royal Assent on 31 July. We debated that Bill in the light of the manifesto on which the Government were elected. I want to make it clear this morning that, whatever Conservative Members feel or think, that was a mandate, and we will not have it overturned by local authorities that are blatantly trying to reintroduce the assisted places scheme under another name.
There will be partnership. We shall have agreements. The private sector is prepared to co-operate, and we welcome that. It has to be a genuine partnership, not a subsidy to the private sector. It has to be in the interests of all children, which means not diverting public money allocated by Government for spending in state schools, to provide money for private schools. We shall continue to seek that partnership and to build on the progress that has been made, and I commend the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has been doing to build those bridges.
I also want to make it clear that there will be no danger to those programmes in music, ballet, special needs, which we all accept and which we have repeatedly said are perfectly legitimate. What we shall not tolerate is local government simply seeking to cock a snook at the elected Government on a manifesto that was overwhelmingly carried on 1 May last year as a deliberate political act that has nothing to do with increasing the standards of education.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall not give way. In politics we are all subject to pomposity, but if there had been a competition for pomposity over the past few hours, the hon. Gentleman would have won hands down. At this time in the morning, we need to be able to distinguish simple verbal diarrhoea from genuine argument.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Hear, hear.

Mr. Blunkett: I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In that case, will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I want to make it absolutely clear that I shall give way to no Conservative Member, in view of the filibuster that they have operated over the past 12 hours. We are now going to make progress.
The argument is clear: yes, let us have partnership; yes, let us ensure that, where provision is not available at local level for special needs, ballet or music, it is made available; but we are not prepared to have an assisted places scheme by another name. We shall judge each of the proposals brought forward by local government on its merits; we shall not fetter our discretion. We shall not go again through a debate that we have already had just for

a party political game, which has nothing to do with the standard of education for the bulk of this country's children.

Mr. Dorrell: First, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his birthday wishes. There are few things I should prefer to be doing than debating with him an issue of such profound importance.
The right hon. Gentleman persists in believing that the opportunity for a local education authority to buy an education from an independent school, in a way that represents a fair use of resources compared with the education bought for other children in its area, is somehow doing down the maintained sector, and is an artificial subsidy to the private sector. That is total nonsense: it is one of the clearest descriptions possible of the difference between the Secretary of State's approach and mine.
I believe that money voted by Parliament for the provision of school education for children should be used in a way that focuses on the needs of individual children, and provides that education in whatever institution is best placed to provide it. The Secretary of State clearly still believes that money voted in those circumstances is money voted to an institution. That is the clear distinction of principle that continues to divide us.
The Secretary of State says that the issue was resolved by the passage of the Bill last summer, but the fact is that the divorce between the independent sector and the maintained sector is a continuing problem facing the education system—indeed, it defaces the British school system. The Secretary of State has no response to it whatever, and he cannot simply decree it away. It is an issue that will continue to dog education debates until we have a Government who are prepared to face the issue head on, and deal with it for the serious issue that it is.
That is why—despite the lateness of the hour—we shall push the new clause to a Division. Few issues illustrate more clearly the difference of principle between the Secretary of State, who is more interested in the institutions, and the Conservatives, who are more interested in providing education to children in whatever institution is best placed to meet their needs.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 220.

Division No. 226]
[3.34 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Arbuthnot, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Leigh, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Letwin, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Loughton, Tim


Burns, Simon
Luff, Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Gibb, Nick
Randall, John


Grieve, Dominic
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hayes, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Heald, Oliver
Sayeed, Jonathan






Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Swayne, Desmond



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waterson, Nigel
Sir David Madel and Mr. John Whittingdale.


Whitney, Sir Raymond





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ennis, Jeff


Allan, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Flynn, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Barnes, Harry
Galloway, George


Barron, Kevin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bayley, Hugh
Gibson, Dr Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Norman A


Bennett, Andrew F
Golding, Mrs Llin


Berry, Roger
Grant, Bernie


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Blackman, Liz
Grogan, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Blizzard, Bob
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Hanson, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Harris, Dr Evan


Brand, Dr Peter
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Breed, Colin
Healey, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Heppell, John


Browne, Desmond
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Hinchliffe, David


Burden, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Burgon, Colin
Home Robertson, John


Burstow, Paul
Hope, Phil


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Caplin, Ivor
Hurst, Alan


Casale, Roger
Hutton, John


Caton, Martin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Chaytor, David
Jamieson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Clapham, Michael
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Clark, Dr Lynda
(Welwyn Hatfield)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Clelland, David
Jones, Ms Jenny


Clwyd, Ann
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Coaker, Vernon
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Keeble, Ms Sally


Coleman, Iain
Keetch, Paul


Colman, Tony
Kemp, Fraser


Connarty, Michael
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kidney, David


Cooper, Yvette
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Corston, Ms Jean
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Cousins, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cox, Tom
Laxton, Bob


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lepper, David


Cummings, John
Levitt, Tom


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dafis, Cynog
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dalyell, Tam
Lock, David


Darvill, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McCabe, Steve


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Davidson, Ian
McDonnell, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McFall, John


Dawson, Hilton
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Donohoe, Brian H
McIsaac, Shona


Doran, Frank
McNulty, Tony


Dowd, Jim
MacShane, Denis


Edwards, Huw
Mactaggart, Fiona





Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moffatt, Laura
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mullin, Chris
(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Norris, Dan
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Eddie
Touhig, Don


O'Neill, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Öpik, Lembit
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pollard, Kerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
Webb, Steve


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wcks, Malcolm


Rendel, David
Willis, Phil


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Audrey


Roy, Frank
Woolas, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wray, James


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sanders, Adrian



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Shaw, Jonathan

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 16

PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR ENGLAND

'.—The School Inspections Act 1996 shall be amended as follows—
(1) in section 2 (Functions of the Chief inspector for England), subsection (7)(a), after 'lay' there shall be inserted insert, "by order,"
(2) in section 45 (Orders and regulations)
(a) in subsection (2), after 'section' insert '2'.
(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—

"No order shall be made under section 2 of this Act unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3 45 am

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Few in the House would disagree with the Prime Minister when he said that his top three priorities would be education, education and education. The House would also agree that in education the priority must be to raise standards.
A couple of years ago, the chief inspector, Mr. Chris Woodhead, gave a talk, which he called "Inspecting schools—the key to raising educational standards". He believes, and I agree with him, that, if inspection is properly carried out, it can be a major tool in the drive to raise standards in our schools, local education authorities, colleges and universities.
If inspection is so important in raising standards, the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector is a vital document which should inform not just the Secretary of State but the whole of Parliament. For that reason, the new clause proposes that the HMCI's annual report should not just be laid before Parliament, as is required in the School Inspections Act 1996, but should be subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament.
Until the advent of the new Government, we used to have an annual debate on the assisted places scheme. We believe that, if it was important to debate a matter that affects such a small proportion of pupils, time could be found for Parliament to debate a matter that should affect every pupil in every school. It deserves the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament.
Many people are concerned that there is a lack of democratic accountability in the work of Ofsted. [Interruption.] Many of us are concerned that, when we ask Ministers about Ofsted's work, we do not get—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Could there be less distracting noise from the Benches, please?

Mr. Foster: There are concerns about the democratic accountability of Ofsted. For example, when we ask Ministers about Ofsted's work, we often get the reply, "That is not a matter for the Minister," and our inquiries are passed on to the chief inspector.
Many of us watched the television programme "Dispatches" last Thursday, when the chief inspector acknowledged that there might be a need to improve his organisation's democratic accountability. He said:
We've certainly got no secrets that we feel guilty about. So we're open to any kind of documentary inquiry, any kind of academic inquiry, any kind of inquiry that Parliament, perhaps, might want to throw at us.
It is therefore quite clear that the chief inspector himself can, and would, have no objection to the scrutiny allowed by public debate on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament.
Such debate would enable us to ask some questions about certain aspects of the chief inspector's report, and help us to formulate future policy. Undoubtedly, we would wish to question, for example, the chief inspector's choice of language.
There were criticisms of the chief inspector in a recent study, which dealt with how two inspectors studying the same lessons reached different judgments in a third of all

lessons. Although the researchers pointed out that there was such a discrepancy in judgment in one third of all lessons, the chief inspector chose to interpret that as meaning that judgments agreed in two thirds of lessons.
The two thirds/one third issue is quite an interesting one. In the initial draft of one of his own reports, "The Teaching of Reading in 45 London Primary Schools", the chief inspector said:
the quality of teaching is satisfactory or better in approximately 2/3 of lessons observed in Year 2.
However—as he wanted, I suspect, to make a rather more derogatory report—he changed that to:

weaknesses in teaching hampered pupils' progress and attainment in reading in 1 in 3 lessons in Year 2.
Clearly, Ofsted's work is not of particular interest to Labour Members. However, given that it is costing the United Kingdom £150 million annually, I believe that it should concern them. I certainly hope that they believe that Ofsted should provide value for money. They should also be concerned about criticisms made of the chief inspector's annual report.
Those who watched last Thursday's "Dispatches" programme—as I certainly did—will have been very concerned by comments by Mr. Alan Padden, head teacher of the Adel primary school, in Leeds. He was very concerned about an Ofsted report of his school, and said:
four days in a school isn't good enough if your camera isn't focused and your camera isn't pointing in the right direction. The snap isn't worth having.
In that programme, Mr. Padden reported that, in some cases, judgments of lessons in his school were made by inspectors after less than five, 10 or 15 minutes. He defied any inspector to evaluate teaching quality, the attainment level of a class of up to 30 pupils and the progress that those pupils made in a lesson, and to validate those judgments, in such short periods. Perhaps even more worrying was that the Ofsted report included judgments on—and scores for pupils' attainment in—a music lesson that had not even been given. Hon. Members should have an opportunity to debate such matters and concerns on the Floor of the House.
We should be able to debate also the manner in which the chief inspector collects his own data. It is quite fascinating that the chief inspector tells members of the public that the vast majority of people in schools are satisfied with how his inspections are conducted, yet I have a copy of his method of collecting data to formulate judgments.
The chief inspector uses a five-point scale. As I am sure hon. Members are well aware, a five-point scale will usually have a spectrum comprising statements from "strongly agree" and "agree", to a central, neutral position, and finally to "disagree" and "strongly disagree". However, although one extreme end of the spectrum in the chief inspector's scale says "strongly agree" and "agree", the middle statement is "broadly agree". At the other extreme end of the spectrum is "disagree" and "strongly disagree". It is thus hardly surprising that the chief inspector tells us that many people are happy with what he is doing, when the reality is that many are not happy.
If the chief inspector's report is considered so important by him and by the Government in the process of levering up standards in schools, and if both Houses of Parliament


are interested in levering up standards, as I believe they should be, we should have the right to debate the chief inspector's report on the Floor of the House.
Only a few years ago, the chief inspector said that the importance of Ofsted's work was that it ensured that it was possible to ascertain whether the emperor's clothes existed and whether they were as they might seem to an unsuspecting eye. A debate on the chief inspector's annual report on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament would give us the opportunity not only to have an informed debate on educational standards but to check whether this particular emperor—the chief inspector—has any clothes.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I shall detain the House for only a short time. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, and this issue goes to the heart of that Committee's responsibilities—[Interruption.] It is a disgrace that Labour Members are not prepared to consider the duties that the House gives to Members and how they might be affected by amendments. It is also a disgrace that no Labour member of the Select Committee is present to discuss this important subject. It is a matter of regret to me that only two Conservative members of that Committee are here. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is otherwise detained, but she has been here for virtually the entire evening. However, not one of the Labour members of the Select Committee on Education and Employment has bothered to be here for this debate.
I regret that I have to oppose the new clause, and must point out that we have a means of examining the chief inspector: we have the right to inquire of him what his views are, and we call him before the Select Committee. My concern is that the new clause would undermine that very important role of the Committee.

Mr. Hayes: I hope that my hon. Friend's concern is not so deep that he will not be able to support the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

Mr. St. Aubyn: I may well end up in the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Bath on the ground that I suspect that the new clause will be opposed by the Government, and I am deeply opposed to everything that the Government are doing in the Bill. However, I have to point out that the hon. Member for Bath did not pay enough attention in his speech—although I regret missing the first part of it—to the vital role of the Select Committee. That is where the chief inspector is primarily accountable and where we must hold him accountable on behalf of the House.

Mr. Byers: I shall invite the House to vote against the new clause, and I give two fundamental reasons why it should do so. The first is that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has misunderstood the role played by the chief inspector. The chief inspector might advise the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State will determine his own policy in the light of advice which he receives from a range of individuals and organisations.
The second reason, in respect of scrutiny by the House, is that the chief inspector is independent of the Secretary of State. That is one of the reasons why parliamentary questions tabled to Ministers are in fact replied to by the chief inspector—he is a Crown servant and, as such, not answerable to the Secretary of State.
In fact, the best way to scrutinise the work of the chief inspector and Ofsted is through the Select Committee. If there is an annual report, the chief inspector can be invited to give evidence, and the Select Committee can then report to the House in the light of those hearings. That is a far more appropriate way of scrutinising Ofsted's work. It keeps lines of communication and responsibility clearly defined.
We believe that the new clause will create confusion. It will not help in holding the chief inspector to account. I hope that, at this late hour, the new clause will not be pressed to a Division, but, if it is, I shall invite the House to oppose it.

4 am

Mr. Dorrell: I listened to what the Minister had to say, but I also listened to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and I found his arguments persuasive. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) was right to say that the Select Committee was an important element of parliamentary accountability, but I am sure that he—indeed, any member of a Select Committee—understands that the Select Committee is a Committee of the House of Commons, and that ultimate responsibility rests with the House.
The hon. Member for Bath made a number of points to which the Minister did not respond. As I have said, I found the hon. Gentleman's arguments persuasive, and if he chose to press the new clause to a Division, we would support him.

Mr. Don Foster: I was delighted to hear the response of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). In the light of his comments, I shall be interested to see how the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) votes.
Like the right hon. Member for Charnwood, I found the Minister's response deeply disappointing. I hope that we can press the new clause to a vote, and that it will be supported by all who believe that there should be democratic accountability in the work of the chief inspector. I hope that all who believe that raising standards is important, and that inspection is an important element of that, will have the opportunity to engage in a serious annual debate on the chief inspector's report.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 194.

Division No. 227]
[4.1 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Harris, Dr Evan


Allan, Richard
Hayes, John


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Blunt, Crispin
Jenkin, Bernard


Brand, Dr Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burstow, Paul
Madel, Sir David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Öpik, Lembit


Evans, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Prior, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Randall, John






Rendel, David
Swayne, Desmond


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Whittingdale, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Mr. Paul Keetch and Mr. Edward Davey.


Stunell, Andrew





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gibson, Dr Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Godman, Norman A


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Grant, Bernie


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Grogan, John


Barnes, Harry
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Barron, Kevin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Bayley, Hugh
Hanson, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bennett, Andrew F
Healey, John


Berry, Roger
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Blackman, Liz
Hepburn, Stephen


Blears, Ms Hazel
Heppell, John


Blizzard, Bob
Hill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hoey, Kate


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Home Robertson, John


Browne, Desmond
Hope, Phil


Buck, Ms Karen
Hoyle, Lindsay


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Burgon, Colin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Byers, Stephen
Hurst, Alan


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hutton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Iddon, Dr Brian


Caplin, Ivor
Jamieson, David


Casale, Roger
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Caton, Martin
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Chaytor, David
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Jones, Ms Jenny


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Clelland, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Coaker, Vernon
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kidney, David


Coleman, Iain
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Colman, Tony
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Connarty, Michael
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Laxton, Bob


Cooper, Yvette
Lepper, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Levitt, Tom


Corston, Ms Jean
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Cox, Tom
Lock, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCabe, Steve


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dalyell, Tam
McDonnell, John


Darvill, Keith
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Davidson, Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Dawson, Hilton
McNulty, Tony


Donohoe, Brian H
MacShane, Denis


Doran, Frank
Mactaggart, Fiona


Dowd, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Edwards, Huw
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Ennis, Jeff
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Moffatt, Laura


Galloway, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Norris, Dan
(Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Trickett, Jon


Prosser, Gwyn
Truswell, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Raynsford, Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
White, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rowlands, Ted
Wicks, Malcolm


Roy, Frank
Wills, Michael


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Savidge, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, James


Shaw, Jonathan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. John McFall and Mr. Clive Betts.


Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 17

REQUIREMENT FOR RECOUPMENT TO BE PAID FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

'.—In section 492 of the Education Act 1996 (Recoupment: adjustment between local education authorities), for "may" in subsection (1) there shall be substituted "shall".'.—[Mr. Burstow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall endeavour not to detain the House too long. I should like to start with a positive comment. The aim of the new clause is to address the worst effects of the interplay of the Greenwich judgment, grant-maintained schools and selection, which can leave children in many parts of the country without a school place.
We want to allow the money to follow the pupil. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the report of its debates. The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment in Committee in an attempt to address the Greenwich judgment head on by reversing it. After debate, the amendment was withdrawn. We have reflected on what was said and have tabled the new clause in an attempt to move matters forward.
A number of problems arise from the Greenwich judgment. It is not relevant in every area, but the problems affect many, particularly those in large conurbations with a number of smaller local education authorities—areas where selection continues and there is a large number of


grant-maintained schools. There has been a fragmentation of the admission and planning arrangements designed to meet the demand for places.
As a result, it can be increasingly difficult for a local education authority to match demand for places. Authorities have a statutory duty to provide school places, and some are trying to plan for that by increasing the number of places, while others have surplus places.
Those facing increasing demand for school places experience a volatility of demand that creates greater pressure on the overall supply. It is difficult for LEAs to anticipate or control that, and thus to fund it. In those circumstances, taking into account both market-led forces and the lead times for building new accommodation, it is difficult to meet the additional demand.
Within an individual LEA, the distribution of places is no longer a question of demography but one of parental choice—perfectly legitimate choice. In Sutton, my local education authority, the situation brought about by the Greenwich judgment on grant-maintained schools and selection means that on current projections, based on the continued inflow of out-of-borough pupils, there will be a shortfall of 2,400 places by 2003.
4.15 am
In Committee, there was a detailed debate about the effects of the Greenwich judgment—[Interruption.]—perhaps of the sort that is not possible in the Chamber at this hour in the morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The amendment was designed to reflect the concern of Liberal Democrat Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wake them up."] My hon. Friends certainly have those concerns, and we seek through the new clause another way of mitigating the worst effects of the judgment, without denying parental choice.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable local education authorities to charge other LEAs for pupils who come from elsewhere to be educated within their areas. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to do so under the Education Act 1996. It is our view that the standard spending assessment does not provide an adequate way of redressing the imbalance increasingly occurring between popular local education authorities and those with surplus places that are not doing as good a job.
The new clause represents a way in which we could begin to address that problem. I hope that the Government will give us a positive response, and that we shall be able to do something to stop the spoilt choice that parents and children in many LEAs now face.

Mr. Byers: New clause 17 would effectively reintroduce mandatory inter-authority recoupment in relation to pupil numbers. That is not a road down which the Government would wish to go, so if it is pressed to a vote, I shall ask the House to vote against it. However,I hope that we can avoid that, because the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has raised some important points about the consequences of the Greenwich judgment on payments for pupils in the home authority rather than the host authority where they may be attending school.
We believe that such matters are best dealt with through the standard spending assessment regime. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are conducting a

wholesale review of the system with the intention of introducing new measures for April 1999. I can assure him that the concerns that he has just raised will be taken into account as part of that exercise. In the light of those assurances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw new clause 17 and allow his concerns to be addressed as part of the review of the standard spending assessment regime.

Mr. Burstow: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I am grateful that he listened carefully to my remarks about the way in which the Greenwich judgment affects my authority and many others. It is not the effect on the LEA that concerns me and my colleagues—it is the effect on parents and children who find themselves unable to get a school place. However, having listened to the Minister's generous offer in respect of SSA methodology—which provides a way forward to address the funding issues—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 18

MAKING AND APPROVAL OF CODE OF PRACTICE FOR LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AND MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

'—(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue or revise a code of practice under section 117, he shall prepare a draft of the code (or revised code).
(2) The Secretary of State shall consult such persons about the draft as he thinks fit and shall consider any representations made by them.
(3) If he determines to proceed with the draft (either in its original form or with such modifications as he thinks fit) he shall lay a copy of the draft before each House of Parliament.
(4) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed code.
(5) If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State shall issue the code (or revised code) in the form of the draft, and it shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(6) If a draft of a proposed code of practice is not approved under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may lay a new draft of a proposed code before both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Willis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall be equally brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This bear pit is what it must have been like for the Christians being fed to the lions.
The purpose of the new clause is straightforward, and we hope that the Government will support it. In Committee, we discussed the relationship between LEAs and schools. It took a great deal of hard work to get from the Government an agreement that there would be a published code of practice. We welcomed that, and we welcomed also the fact that there will be a clear set of criteria covering the relationship between an LEA and an individual school. What worries us is that the Bill proposes to give the Secretary of State the power to change the code of practice without any review. The purpose of the new clause is to say that, if the Secretary of State wishes to change the code of practice, a resolution from both Houses will be needed.

Mrs. Browning: We have touched on this issue in Committee and on Report and, yet again, I seek an


assurance from the Minister. The Government's consultation will be reported in the summer—I believe in about June. Will the Minister assure us that, if there are changes to the code of practice, they will not be implemented during the summer recess, and that the Government will wait for this House to give the changes full scrutiny?

Mr. Byers: I am more than pleased to give an assurance to the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that there will be the fullest possible consultation about the LEA code of practice. It will be one of the most important codes to come out of the Bill. It will define the relationship within the new framework between LEAs and individual schools. There is some uncertainty between those partners, and it is only right and proper that the code of practice clarifies the respective responsibilities.
I do not feel that it is appropriate to deal with the matters in the way outlined by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. It may be that the regulations need to be changed on a regular basis, to reflect the different responses and needs of the partners within the new framework, and we need flexibility. If changes are proposed, the new draft document will be fully consulted upon, with the intention of getting it absolutely right. If, after that consultation—during the practical implementation of the system—the view is that changes are needed, once again there will be the fullest possible consultation. I hope that, in the light of that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances, which were the sort of assurances that we required. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 21

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

'(1) The Education Act 1996 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 548 (no right to give corporal punishment)
(a) omit subsections (2), (4) and (5).
(b) in subsection (3), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
(aa) any pupil for whom nursery education (within the meaning of Part V of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998) is provided.
(c) in subsection (3), omit subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b), and paragraph (d).
(3) In section 549 (interpretation of section 548), omit subsection (3).'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 23—Abolition of corporal punishment in schools etc.—
'.—(1) For section 548 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be substituted—

"No right to give corporal punishment

548.—(1) Corporal punishment given by, or on the authority of, a member of staff to a child—
(a) for whom education is provided, at any school, or
(b) for whom education is provided, otherwise than at school, under any arrangements made by a local education authority, or
(c) for whom specified nursery education is provided otherwise than at school,
cannot be justified in any proceedings on the ground that it was given in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of staff by virtue of his position as such.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to corporal punishment so given to a child at any time, whether at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or elsewhere.
(3) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this section.
(4) Any reference to giving corporal punishment to a child is to doing anything for the purpose of punishing that child (whether or not there are other reasons for doing it) which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery.
(5) However, corporal punishment shall not be taken to be given to a child by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting—
(a) an immediate danger of personal injury to, or
(b) an immediate danger to the property of,
any person (including the child himself).
(6) "Member of staff', in relation to the child concerned, means—
(a) any person who works as a teacher at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or
(b) any other person who (whether in connection with the provision of education for the child or otherwise)—
(i) works at that school or place, or
(ii) otherwise provides his services there (whether or not for payment),
and has lawful control or charge of the child.
(7) "Child" (except in subsection (8)) means a person under the age of 18.
(8) "Specified nursery education" means full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age which is provided—
(a) by a local education authority; or
(b) by any other person—
(i) who is (or is to be) in receipt of financial assistance given by such an authority and whose provision of nursery education is taken into account by the authority in formulating proposals for the purposes of section 110(2)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or
(ii) who is (or is to be) in receipt of grants under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996; or
(c) (otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)) in any educational institution which would fall within section 4(1) above (definition of "school") but for the fact that it provides part—time, rather than full—time, primary education."
(2) The following provisions of the Education Act 1996, namely—
(a) section 549 (interpretation of section 548), and
(b) section 550 (no avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school etc.), shall cease to have effect.'.

Amendment No. 144, in clause 114, page 83, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.

Amendment No. 171, in schedule 29, page 205, line 25, at end insert—'Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)—
In section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (saving for right of parents etc. to administer corporal punishment), for "teacher, or other person" substitute "or (subject to section 548 of the Education Act 1996) any other person,".'.

Amendment No. 172, in page 223, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert
'Omit sections 549 and 550 (provisions about corporal punishment).'.

Amendment No. 173, in schedule 30, page 235, column 3, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert 'Sections 549 and 550.'.

Amendment No. 174, in page 237, line 54, at end insert—


'1997 c. 59.
Education (Schools) Act 1997
Section 6(1).In section 7, in subsection (3)(a) "section 6(1)", and in subsection (4)(a) "(1) and".'

Mr. Foster: New clause 21 would remove corporal punishment from independent schools. I move it in the certain knowledge that it will receive significant support in the House—I know that because I read it in today's The Independent,which tells us in advance of our deliberations that the House has swept away the last vestiges of caning. It is not enough to rely on The Independent, however, so I shall make the case briefly in the hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues make a habit of issuing press releases before events in this manner?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is certainly our practice to issue press releases saying what we hope to achieve in the House. Indeed, The Independent carries reports of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and I said about the issue at a press conference at 10.30 am—we made no attempt to imply that those comments were made later. Perhaps it will speed up the debate if I briefly describe what we said.
This debate gives us the opportunity to complete what I believe, and I am sure the House will believe, to be unfinished business. [Interruption.] Well, I hope that some hon. Members will believe it to be unfinished business. In 1948, birching as a judicial punishment was abolished in the United Kingdom. In 1957, flogging was abolished in the Navy. In 1967, corporal punishment in prisons and borstals was abolished. That was an important year, because it was in that year that the Plowden report, "Children and their Primary Schools", recommended the abolition of corporal punishment in both state and independent schools. The report stated:
We believe that the kind of relationship which ought to exist between teacher and child cannot be built up in an atmosphere in which the infliction of physical pain is regarded as a normal sanction.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the new clause draws a distinction

between the ritualised flogging that both he and I want outlawed and the teacher who slaps a child? [Interruption.] Obviously, that concept excites some ribaldry among Labour Members, but some parents who are completely against ritualised beating would be concerned if a teacher could not lightly slap a child. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that matter?

Mr. Foster: I will clarify it, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he would raise the issue. I believe that the Secretary of State was right when, about two weeks ago, he introduced guidance to teachers that made it very clear that they could reasonably use a physical approach if it prevented children who were fighting from harming one another. I believe that teachers needed that reassurance. Anything beyond that is, in my view, unacceptable, and the new clause would not make the distinction to which the hon. Member refers.
It is my clear view that corporal punishment is wrong in principle: it is barbaric and inhuman. It is also wrong in practice, because there is no evidence whatever that it is an effective deterrent either for the child who may have been misbehaving or for other children.
4.30 am
The Elton committee, which studied the matter in considerable detail in 1989, said:
there is little evidence that Corporal Punishment was in general an effective deterrent either to the pupils punished or to other pupils.
I do not believe that the use of corporal punishment in schools can help to develop good educational practice.
I hope that the House is aware that although the vast majority—80 per cent.—of independent schools have the legal right to use corporal punishment, they have already decided voluntarily to abolish it. The Independent Schools Council said:
Many schools concluded long before any form of legal ban was contemplated that corporal punishment impeded good education.
I estimate that no more than 200 independent schools continue to use corporal punishment, but I believe that the House should act to ensure that schools are legally obliged to cease its use forthwith.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman said that it is barbaric to use corporal punishment in schools. If it is barbaric for a teacher to slap an unruly child, is it also, in his opinion, barbaric for a parent to do the same?

Mr. Foster: My personal view is that corporal punishment by a parent is wrong, but the new clause does not in any way infringe the rights of individual parents to inflict such punishment.

Dr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Foster: I am still answering the hon. Gentleman's first point. My personal view is that corporal punishment by a parent is indeed barbaric. It is for other hon. Members to decide their view on the matter. The new clause does not deal with that point, nor was it intended to.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to contribute.
As I said at the beginning, this is an opportunity for the House to complete some unfinished business. Were we to pass this new clause or new clause 23, we would bring this country into line with all other European countries, both east and west. Surely it must be of interest to the House that not one other European country allows corporal punishment in any of its schools. I hope that, by the end of tonight, this country will have signalled its intention of joining that sensible decision taken by all other European countries.

Kali Mountford: I shall address my relatively brief remarks to new clause 23. We are drawing to the close of a very long debate, and we are also drawing to a close the practice of corporal punishment in our schools and educational establishments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on raising this important issue on the Floor of the House. I entirely agree with his aims and hope that he and his hon. Friends will agree that, as well as removing the right to corporal punishment, new clause 23 would protect teachers who in the course of their duties may be accused of administering corporal punishment when they are attempting to protect children. In the light of that, I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will consider supporting new clause 23. We have had to be patient tonight. It has been a long debate and I want to keep my comments as brief as possible. In that vein, I do not intend to take interventions.
I have seen no evidence that corporal punishment enhances teaching or learning, that it enhances a child's life chances or makes a child a better citizen, or to show that a classroom cannot be controlled without the threat or the use of violence.
Relatively few schools still indulge in this outdated practice—a practice that has been outlawed throughout the rest of Europe and abandoned by Eton. I am sure that many of the old Etonians in this place will confirm that Eton is not renowned for its lax discipline. Other disciplinary measures are available that are more appropriate in a modern school setting and which allow children the opportunity to learn how to deal with conflicts.
The report, "Childhood Matters", by the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse, chaired by Lord Williams of Mostyn, states:
The general decline in the permitted use of sanctions in this form, for example in publicly maintained schools and nurseries, is to be welcomed. Alternative ways of ensuring acceptable standards should be explored and promoted".
Evidence shows that children in schools that indulge in corporal punishment are either frightened by the experience, which is not conducive to good education, or resentful and rebellious, which is not good for discipline. One boy in my old school was beaten daily and became the school hero as a result. Other boys sought to emulate his behaviour. Canings had the opposite effect to that intended.
Physically abused children often have problems in life. Many prisoners were beaten in school. Evidence shows that people who use violence to settle disputes have experienced violence themselves. In the interests of discipline, we merely conserve the conditions in which

violence can thrive. Some hon. Members invoke the in loco parentis argument to support their case that parents can choose corporal punishment, but it is not right to delegate that choice to another adult. Teachers do not want that right, and their trade unions do not want it; they welcome prohibition.
Lord Williams of Mostyn felt that parents and those acting on their behalf as parents had no more right to use physical punishment on children. The commission that he chaired felt that children should have the same right of protection as adults, and said that the ban on the use of corporal punishment in publicly maintained schools should be extended to independent schools and nurseries.
The Independent Schools Joint Council supports the end of corporal punishment. It represents 80 per cent. of children in the private sector and supports a ban because that is what parents want. In one school, parents withdrew their children because they discovered that children were being physically punished. They did not know that their children were being beaten; when they found out that they had had their choice taken away, they withdrew their children.
The Utting report on children and violence found that children need protection when living away from home. It said that reasonable chastisement should not constitute a defence for physical abuse of children. It also said that the most effective way of discouraging violence against children is to make it plain that none is acceptable. Children should be defended against punitive treatment.
Schools need to develop disciplinary measures. I see no reason why that cannot involve the withdrawal of treats, detention, performing useful tasks and extra home work. With older children, peer group councils have been especially useful with bullies and other disruptive behaviour. It is a far better form of discipline than corporal punishment. If hon. Members accept the amendment, it will end a discredited, outdated and ineffective practice and bring us into line with the rest of modern Europe.

Mrs. Browning: New clause 21 will be subject to a free vote for Conservative Members.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Lady declare an interest?

Mrs. Browning: Yes. I have slapped a lot of little legs and I can see a lot of little legs that need slapping tonight. [Laughter.] Line up in the corner and see me afterwards.
I cannot support new clause 21. There are some variations on it in new clause 23, to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) spoke. For example, subsection (5) makes an exception in respect of action taken where a child is in immediate danger. That is a sensible addition, but I parted company from her when she invoked the idea that corporal punishment was necessarily akin to child abuse or violence with long-reaching psychological effects. She mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the European dimension. I should like to put on record the position on corporal punishment based on case law in the European Court. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled that there is nothing inherently inhuman or degrading about physical correction. In its judgment on a case concerning school corporal discipline, it declared:


a particular level of severity
had to be reached for a punishment to be in breach of the European convention on human rights. The judgment went on to say:
factors such as the nature and context of the punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health
of the child being disciplined must all be taken into account. That judgment was in the case of Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom in 1993.
4.45 am
Furthermore, article 2, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights requires states to
respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
I am concerned about the spirit of new clauses 21 and 23 not because I advocate the flogging of children—certainly not—but because there could be a dangerous read-across from schools to the rights of parents to smack. At present, if corporal punishment is practised in an independent school, parents have an opportunity to say whether they are in support of it or not and make an appropriate choice.
I jokingly said to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) that I had smacked a lot of little legs. I have to say to the hon. Member for Colne Valley—perhaps I failed as a parent in this—that when a child of two or three tries to run into the road, you can point out the dangers to him, but there comes a point at which a slap on the leg prevents the child coming into danger. I advocate the parents' right to exercise that type of discipline in the child's own interest. It would be a great concern if the new clauses were accepted and that subsequently led to a diminution of the rights of parents. I am not talking about flogging; I am talking simply about the slap on the legs that many parents feel is necessary in the interests of the child's safety.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Not many things would get me on my feet in this place at 4.45 am, especially when I have to be on my feet again at 9.30 am for another debate. Having seen what corporal punishment does to people in a secondary modern school, however, I feel deeply that we should move ahead this morning in the way outlined in new clause 23.
The current situation is ludicrous and anomalous. I am grateful that the Government are prepared to listen to arguments that this nonsense should be removed. My central point is that corporal punishment simply does not work. That was my experience at secondary modern school. I urge any hon. Members here who advocate retaining corporal punishment to look at the punishment books of schools that still use corporal punishment, or of those, like my own, which used it in the past. The same names appeared week in and week out—the same boys and the same girls. That is the most obvious evidence that it does not work.

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I will not take interventions. The hon. Gentleman can make his own points at the appropriate time.
After listening to the comments that have been made so far, I should like those hon. Members who argue for the retention of corporal punishment in schools to define the difference between legitimate corporal punishment and child abuse. I say that because I have had the experience on more than one occasion of having to define that difference in a juvenile court. I used to work in a social services department.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) talked about slapping legs. When one slaps legs, occasionally one marks a child. I have had to go to court and give evidence in cases where children who have received corporal punishment have been marked. I should like to hear a clear definition of what is child abuse and what is not; what is legitimate corporal punishment and what is abuse. I suspect that no one here can define that difference, which is why we have to grasp the nettle tonight and get rid of this nonsense once and for all.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I have made it clear that I am not giving way. I intend to conclude shortly.
This country is looked upon by other European countries as an anachronistic regime living in a historical time warp, because we still permit corporal punishment. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and I hope that a time will come when we do not hit our children but look for alternative methods of discipline. I plead guilty to having occasionally slapped my children when they were younger. I recognise now that that was not the right approach. There are alternative ways, and I hope that the Government, who are making efforts in this respect, will help parents to find those other ways of ensuring that their children are disciplined and behave in an appropriate manner.
I welcome the fact that the Government have been prepared to listen to the arguments from Back Benchers on the Government Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches and even, I suspect, from several hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who feel uneasy about the current position. I hope that, in a free vote tonight, hon. Members will support new clause 23.

Mr. Nicholls: I hope that I do not embarrass Labour Members too much by joining them in the Lobby later tonight. Of all the arguments I have heard tonight for abolishing corporal punishment in independent schools, the one that I find utterly unconvincing—almost, but not quite, to the extent that it might make me change the way I vote—is that we must do it because otherwise we would be out of step with Europe. We are having a debate in Westminster, in our own sovereign Parliament; we should make up our own minds, one way or the other, for better or for worse, about how we feel about this issue. We should make a decision and be prepared to justify it to ourselves and to our constituents.
The idea that, even at this time of the morning, we should troop up and cravenly say that, simply because Europe is out of step with the United Kingdom, we should follow Europe, is one that I find demeaning and insulting. In saying that, I hope that, to a certain extent, I have been able to do something to save the embarrassment of Labour Members who will, I suspect, find me with them in the Lobby when we vote on the new clause.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was perfectly straightforward in stating how he felt about smacking children, but he is wrong. It is frankly ludicrous to say that one can persuade a two-and-a-half-year-old child not to run out into a road simply by saying, "We're going to reason with you and discuss other forms of disciplinary sanction with you." That is complete and utter nonsense, although I accept that that is how the hon. Gentleman feels. The crucial point is that, even though the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it, it is not slapping in that context that has made him table his new clause. What animated the hon. Gentleman was what I would call ritualised flogging, which is what we are actually talking about.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). My memory is imperfect, but although I do not think that we went to the same school, I am pretty sure that we suffered the same experience. I do not know whether we are going to hear from my hon. Friends some sort of nostalgia for the good old days. I wonder whether they will say, "Well, I got beaten at school and it didn't do me any harm"—[Interruption.] The House can draw its own conclusions about whether it did any harm to those among my hon. Friends who may say that.
My point is that I can remember the state of boys who were beaten at my prep school. I regularly saw marks put on their backs. That was not something out of "Whacko", as some of my colleagues will know. I am talking about boys of 10, 11 or 12 who, as a result of perfectly routine, not particularly excessive, beating, were bruised, cut and bleeding in a way that even I—this should cheer Labour Members up—find utterly unacceptable. I did not think that it was right then and I do not think it is right now. That is what we are talking about—that is what is before the House this morning.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way, because I am not afraid to defend my arguments, but first I want to make the point that what I have described is what we are talking about—that is what animates and drives the clause. We are not having a debate about smacking, although I shall come to that in a moment.

Dr. Julian Lewis: We are not talking about beating. No one seems to be suggesting that that sort of beating is going on. It is normal chastisement, such as a parent would administer to his own child without any suggestion of abuse, that will be ruled out by new clause 21. That is the subject to which my hon. Friend should address himself.

Mr. Nicholls: I gave way to my hon. Friend; I hope that he will give me credit for that. I was going to come to the arguments that he was making, but let me deal with them now, in short order.
I accept that ritualised beatings are not taking place. I know of no public school to which I would contemplate sending my son—or to which any of my friends and relatives who educate their children at public school would send their children—that still uses beating. I know

no one who sends children to a private school that treats children in that way. However, some of us have received letters from one or two strange-sounding schools which say that, for a fee, they are perfectly prepared to beat our children for us. If those schools exist, it is legitimate to ask whether they should have that power.
Although I am convinced—and on this subject, I know what I am talking about—that no public school, major or minor, to which any of us would contemplate sending our children today, beats children, the point on which the hon. Member for Bath is seizing is that it is still possible.
I now come to the second point that worries my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). It is the only argument in this whole business that would cause me some concern. The argument goes—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned it—that new clause 21 might be the thin end of a particular wedge. It is argued that, if we passed the new clause tonight, it might mean that parents could not apply reasonable chastisement to their children. I admit that that is a risk, and for some—but not for all—it is the motive.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East that, if that is so, it is far better to legislate out the unjustifiable and then take the argument on its merits. One does not ultimately safeguard and justify the right to smack a child by ensuring that ritualised flogging in schools remains legal under British law. I put it to my hon. Friend that we might just as well say that we cannot outlaw hare coursing because that would have an effect on the fox hunting argument. I would much prefer to defend fox hunting on its merits rather than thinking that I must defend hare coursing because otherwise there will be a read-across.
It is being suggested that we should retain for children a punishment that we would not inflict on the worst criminal. I want to distance myself from some of the hon. Members with whom I shall vote in a few minutes, so let me say that I believe that there is a very good argument for bringing back corporal punishment for a certain type of criminal. [Interruption.] There we are; we are sorting out the relativities again.
I believe that there is a good argument for corporal punishment for some criminals. If the hon. Member for Bath wants to return to the House on another occasion with such a provision, I shall support him again. However, it is nonsense that, as the law stands, a child who says boo to teacher can be beaten, but a criminal who mugs teacher afterwards cannot have a hand laid on him.
In some ways, I wish that new clause 21 had not come before the House; I should have liked to go home early. I do not believe that independent schools throughout the country are flogging children. I do not know why the hon. Member for Bath tabled the new clause. I am not sure that it was answering a perceived need, but it is there, and we must take a view on it.
The key argument for my hon. Friends to consider is whether the best way to justify the right to chastise one's own child moderately in one's own household is to defend a situation that amounts to the continuing legalisation of ritual beating. That is not the way to meet the argument.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: One of the endearing features of the Liberals is that, on many issues, they display a substantial degree of illiberality. One issue


on which they do so is the question of the right of individuals to go fox hunting, although there are honourable exceptions among the Liberals.
The new clause has a lot to do with principle—the principle of the right of a parent to decide how to deal with his children.

Mr. Dawson: What about the right of a child to be protected from violence?

Mr. Howarth: I am happy to deal with that point as I proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made it clear that there has been a test case under the European convention on human rights, when it was found that there was nothing inhuman or degrading about physical correction. It was decided that particular levels of severity had to be reached for a punishment to be in breach of the convention. We are not talking about a breach of the convention.
5 am
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that there was something barbaric about the application of corporal punishment in schools. Good luck to my hon. Friend. That may be his view and the view of the hon. Member for Bath, but they do not have the right to tell parents throughout the country that they do not have the right to take a contrary view.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend must wait a minute. He is effectively saying that his morality is superior to that of those who take a contrary view. He should consider that carefully before he troops into the Lobby with Labour Members.

Mr. Nicholls: We have a problem; I accept that I am a very superior person. My point—and my hon. Friend knows it—is that we are talking about fact and degree. There are all sorts of things that everyone in this House accepts we cannot do to children; we are simply talking about where we draw the line. I specifically said that I was not talking about what a parent may choose to do to a child. I was talking about handing over that right in circumstances that amount to ritualised beating. That is what I was talking about, and my hon. Friend knows it.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is perfectly content, within the confines of his own home, to apply corporal punishment to his children, but he is not happy about allowing somebody else, who takes precisely the same view, to do so. He is saying to me, as a parent, that I may apply corporal punishment in my own home, but that I may not say to the headmaster of a school to which I wish to send my child that I want to delegate that responsibility to him, provided that he does it in a way that I approve of and not in a way that would inflict undue violence. That is somehow unacceptable.

Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No. The hon. Gentleman has already had a go and he must now make his own speech in his own time—if his hon. Friends will let him have a few moments at this hour of the morning.
There is an important point of principle—that it should be the right of a parent to decide. That is agreed by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bath had said that he believes—although I do not know whether we should take it at face value—that parents should have that right in their own homes.
I believe that the new clause is the thin end of the wedge. The fundamental principle is that parents should have the right to send their children to a school that provides a level of discipline that suits them. I say to Labour Members that the reason why many of their constituents crucify themselves financially to send their children to independent schools is that there is a level of discipline in those schools that they do not find in state schools. That is one of the factors that they take into account.

Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many parents scrimp and save to send their children to schools in my constituency? The parents are seeking a level of discipline in the school, but those schools do not apply corporal punishment

Mr. Howarth: I accept that different schools apply different ranges of discipline. It is up to the parent to decide. If parents are spending that sort of money, they are entitled to make that decision. Parents should have that power.
The hon. Member for Bath assesses that only 200 independent schools use corporal punishment. Although the great majority of independent schools do not apply corporal punishment, we are asked to change the law. The school to which my son went did not apply corporal punishment. I am not necessarily defending corporal punishment. I am defending the right of parents to send their children to a school that applies corporal punishment, if that is what they want.
The fact that the hon. Gentleman seeks to use to law of the land to deal with 200 schools is rather pathetic. I have a suspicion that this is the first step towards Parliament and the law of the land telling parents what they may do in their own homes.

Dr. Julian Lewis: One thing that has emerged clearly from the debate is that no argument that has been used tonight to outlaw modest physical punishment or restraint in schools could not be used to outlaw modest physical punishment or restraint in the home.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) gave the game away, although not willingly—it had to be dragged, if not beaten, out of him. In the course of his oration, I asked him whether, when he said that he regarded the use of physical punishment in schools as barbaric, he also regarded the use of physical punishment in the home as barbaric. Eventually he admitted that that is what he felt. That is the motivation behind the new clause.
Everyone seems to be agreed that physical punishment of an abusive nature is not going on in public schools, so why the urgency to legislate? The reason for the legislation is that it is an indirect way to set up a situation in which it would be logically inconsistent to say that a teacher may not exercise physical punishment or restraint on a child, but a parent can do precisely that in his own home.
Time and again in the contributions that we have heard on the other side of the argument, it is clear that like is not being compared with like. Our opponents speak of gross physical abuse in schools, but they say that the measure does not affect the right of parents to use modest chastisement. However, the new clause is framed in such a way that it will affect the right of teachers to use modest chastisement as well. It is not about physical abuse: it focuses on the right to slap a naughty child.
It is an insult to every parent who believes that it is right to slap his or her own child when it misbehaves to say that that cannot be done in a school. The entire basis for it to be done in a school is that the school is operating in loco parentis. By ruling out physical punishment for the teacher, the new clause is designed, intended and motivated to rule it out in the not too distant future for the parent as well.
Before I comment on an article in The Independent that has been mentioned, I shall deal with the difficulty of technical assault. If we rule out any sort of physical punishment for a child or physical restraint in a school, any teacher who so much as lays a finger on the child is liable to be had up for technical assault. Therefore, when people ask why one requires the ability to inflict modest physical restraint or chastisement on a child if that ability will not be used, one could answer: because one must have the ability to restrain a violent child without having the fear of being had up in court because of the provisions of this Bill.
Several remarks have been made in the debate about an article in today's Independent, which was supposedly "reporting" this debate before it had even been held. The hon. Member for Bath said that nothing that he or his colleagues had said in the article was meant to imply that their comments had already been made in the House. I should therefore like to read a few extracts from the Independent article, which I first read at 2.20 this morning—a full three hours before the debate on new clause 21 had even started—and to state for the record the prophetic skills of Mr. Colin Brown, the Independent's chief political correspondent.
Before the event, Mr. Brown "reported":
A Liberal Democrat MP last night spoke of his 'shame' at caning children as MPs voted to sweep away the last vestiges of corporal punishment in independent schools"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members say, "Hear, hear," but they have not done it yet. Although they will perhaps do it, even people as craven and predictable as they are might have a tinge of resentment at The Independent saying that they had done it before they had even got off their backsides.
The "report" continues:
Former secondary school teacher, Phil Willis, the MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, said: 'Whenever I caned a child, I felt demeaned by it. Quite frankly, I felt quite ashamed later in life to feel that for many years I supported the use of corporal punishment.' …
MPs were given a free vote by the Government to extend the ban in the independent schools during the final Commons stages of the School Standards Bill. …
Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education, challenged Tory backwoodsmen who defended"—
[Interruption.] Yes; but we have not done it yet. The hon. Member for Bath

challenged Tory backwoodsmen who defended 'spanking'"—
a word that I do not think has yet been used by any hon. Member on either side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."]—but that is not to say that we will not use it.
The "report" states that the hon. Member for Bath challenged those who
defended 'spanking' on the grounds that it did children no harm. 'How do they know?', he said. 'I have been caned. It did me harm.'
With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a case of what educationists would call post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Merely because something has done him obvious harm—particularly to his logical faculties—one should not assume that it was caning.
The article continues:
Mr. Willis said there was a need to use a degree of force, sometimes to protect pupils, but caning was an admission of failure in discipline in schools. The ban will"—
it will—
also stop punishment with a slipper or a ruler. It will still allow parents to smack their children, and smacking by child minders with the approval of parents.
The "report" deserves to be put up with those other headlines of events before they have happened, such as the Hindenburg's safe landing and Dewey's defeat of Truman in the United States presidential election. Sadly, the report may be borne out in the event, but not for the right reasons.
It has been a pleasure to have the opportunity—albeit this early in the subsequent morning—to fulfil a promise to my constituents that, if there were a free vote on this issue, I would vote against the new clause. I shall vote against it. Moreover, I know that a majority of public opinion and of parents who believe that they should have the right modestly to chastise their own children would vote against it if they had the chance. It is only sad that the serried ranks of politically correct nannies on the Labour Benches will not give them that opportunity.

Mr. Willis: It seems rather pointless for me to speak after the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has already said so much. However, if hon. Members need to see an example of the effects of caning, they have just seen it.
It matters naught to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and me which of the two new clauses ultimately gets on to the statute book, provided that one of them does. This debate is not about slapping a naughty two-year-old; nor is it about flogging youths, young adults or young children until their backsides bleed. It is basically about the legalised abuse of children, because that is exactly what corporal punishment is.
5.15 am
The one point that has not been made in this debate, perhaps because very few hon. Members have been in the position that I have been in as a teacher and head of a school that used corporal punishment—incidentally, I totally support the comments that I am reported to have made in today's edition of The Independent in this respect—is that, when one administers corporal punishment on another human being, in this case on a child, one demeans oneself. Anyone who does not feel that is a sick person.
Earlier today, I appeared on a television programme with a young teacher who was looking forward to an opportunity to cane students. I think that it is terrible that, as we move into the next millennium, someone looks forward to beating children as a way to discipline them.
I had a fairly long and happy career in the teaching profession, but the one thing I regret more than anything else is that, for a significant number of years, I believed, like some Conservative Members, that corporal punishment was perhaps the only way to deal with recalcitrant children. I was wrong. The system did not work.
In my early days, I worked at a school where every misdemeanour was punished by a stroke of the cane. Every member of staff had a punishment book and a cane. I remember one child coming late into my class and being caned. He was caned at each of the other four lessons of the morning, before having his lunch and running home, or so I thought. That happened for three days. It was only on the third day that I bothered to ask the youngster why he was doing this. The reality was that he had been thrown out of the house by his father on Sunday night and was living in the back of a van. The only way he could get a free meal was to come to school and bear his punishment.
That is a graphic illustration of the futility of caning. It was an easy way to deal with a situation, which avoided—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would have the courtesy to listen to me now, they can barrack me outside.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: No, I will not.
If hon. Members feel that caning is still a worthwhile activity, they are in fact saying that they cannot be bothered to examine the real reasons why children are naughty. Children are naughty; my children are naughty. As the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) will know, I worked in a very difficult school until I became a Member of Parliament.
In 1986, when Leeds city council decided to abolish corporal punishment in Leeds's schools, an army of staff came to tell me that it would mean the end of discipline in the school. In fact, it did not, because we found other ways of getting to the root of the problem and of understanding children. We found that many children for whom corporal punishment had been an answer got twice as much when they got home. To them, it was the norm to be beaten. It was the norm to experience violence, whether of language, a fist or a belt. We were told that that was somehow right.
The new clauses and amendments give us an opportunity to end systematic legalised abuse of children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Barbarous."] Yes, it is barbarous. I hope that tonight we shall see all hon. Members trooping through the same Lobby.

Mr. Dawson: I did not intend to speak, but I have been driven to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), which was the most disgraceful speech that I have ever heard. It is a sad day when a supposedly intelligent person cannot distinguish between the role of a teacher—a professional role requiring a repertoire of professional skills—and the role of a parent, in which a relationship is crucial and seminal.
I hope that, in this country, people will eventually be able to develop parenting skills to the point at which parents themselves will relinquish any thought of inflicting physical pain on their children; but I suspect that that day is some way off, and it is not part of this debate. This debate is about the children's rights to be respected as individuals, which are separate from parents' rights. It is about children's rights to be protected from abuse.
The debate is intended to clarify what abuse of children actually is. It is disgraceful that we need have such a debate at the end of the 20th century, and it is sad that we are having it; but I am glad that we are going to get rid of physical abuse of children.

Mr. Lansley: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), and disagree with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I do not think that it is simply a case of pursuing children's rights. The logic of that means trespassing on the rights and relationships of parents and children, and I do not think that that is what we are discussing. Nor do I support the premise of the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that this is unfinished business in the process of abolishing corporal punishment in judicial proceedings. We are discussing corporal punishment in the context of education.
I would not apply corporal punishment to my children, and I would not permit a school to do so. The new clauses, however, clearly relate to independent schools rather than the maintained sector. I felt that there were two competing arguments—my own argument about corporal punishment, and the argument about the desirability or otherwise of legislating for interference in the internal arrangements of independent schools.
I consulted five independent schools in my constituency, and the result was interesting. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East in an intervention, none of those schools uses corporal punishment; indeed, none of them has used it for years. The head teacher of one of those schools—a respected secondary school—wrote to me in a letter:
I also feel very strongly that a school cannot treat pupils in varying ways according to the views of individual parents … Given that a sizeable number of parents would greatly object to corporal punishment (a situation which is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future) I think it is impractical to retain it.
I believe we can conclude on practical grounds that the great majority of independent schools not only do not use corporal punishment, but would not return to it. On that basis, it is demonstrated that no educational purpose is achieved by the retention of corporal punishment.
Why as a Parliament should we interfere in the internal arrangements of independent schools? In doing so, we do not deny independent schools the opportunity to use punishment for an educational purpose, since I see no argument that such a purpose exists. In pursuing such a course—on this, I go along with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—we add to the protection of children under certain conceivable circumstances where abuse could occur. If parents believe that corporal punishment plays a role in the disciplining of their children, I for one feel that it is far better administered by them in a loving environment than by officialdom in an environment separated from the love of parent and child.
I look to the hon. Member for Bath for guidance if I am wrong in the following respect. If there are schools, as there may be, that see a need for corporal punishment


in the context of the relationship of parent, child and school, administering it should be possible only in very rare circumstances when all parents subscribe to it—perhaps for religious reasons—and when parents exercise it in pursuit of the disciplinary code of the school, rather than under any circumstances the school's teachers or staff administering it.
I rest with the view that it is therefore appropriate to proceed down either the path proposed by the hon. Member for Bath or that proposed by the hon. Member for Come Valley (Kali Mountford). I await an understanding from the Minister of the technical deficiencies or benefits of the new clauses.

Ms Estelle Morris: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister promised a debate on this subject on the Floor of the House—and a free vote at that. The fact that so many hon. Members are still present at 5.30 am shows that he was right, and that the issue should be decided in the House and not in Committee.

Mr. Robathan: Labour Members are still present because of the Whips.

Ms Morris: That is the first time that whips have been mentioned in the debate. We Labour Members also have a free vote.
I turn to the new clauses. I ask the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) to withdraw new clause 21, and instead support new clause 23, which we are advised by parliamentary draftsmen will fulfil all his aims.
I have listened carefully to the debate. Much of the fear of new clause 23—even among Conservative Members who I think will eventually vote for it—surrounded how far it could be interpreted, and into which realms it might extend. I should therefore make it clear that new clause 23 extends prohibition of corporal punishment to pupils attending all types of schools, including non-maintained schools, irrespective of whether their fees are met from public funds. It also extends prohibition to children receiving nursery education that is provided on a formal and systematic basis. The new clause is tightly drawn, and we are advised—I think quite rightly—that it means exactly what I have described.
I can give a further assurance to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who spoke sensibly and sensitively, that the Government would certainly not support an extension of the provision into the realms of the family. I think that it is easy to see a marked difference in the relationship between a parent and child and decisions that parents may make on how they keep discipline in their household, and the relationship between an institution and many children, where the right to punish is given to the institution and delegated to a number of people who happen to work there at any one time.
I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) used the phrase "institutionalised beating". The crucial fact is not whether one uses the term "beating" or any other term, but that power is given to the institution. New clause 23 would prevent that. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my assurances that the Government have no intention of using the new clause or any other provision to extend that into the family.
I have listened carefully to the debate, as I did last year when the former hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth moved a similar new clause to reintroduce corporal punishment to mainstream schools.

Mr. Don Foster: The opposite.

Ms Morris: Yes, the opposite. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is much later—or much earlier—than I thought.
There was an acceptance in the House last year that things had moved on. We all want discipline in schools—I am pleased that that has not been questioned today. We need discipline so that children can learn effectively and teachers can get on with teaching. However, corporal punishment is not the best way to achieve it.
The principal argument in that debate, which has been repeated today, has always persuaded me: corporal punishment does not work. The same names appearing time and again in the punishment books show that it does not work. Corporal punishment can give status to a child who may not be able to gain status among their peer group in any other way.
We must consider what message we want to give to young people about how to deal with conflict and address situations with which they are not happy. That demands skill. Objectives must be set, and there must be consequences if children do not obey the rules. We must ask whether we want to give our children the message that one way in which to deal with people who do not act in a way of which we approve is to use physical force. That conflicts with how we teach them to deal with other people.
Children will learn how to deal with other people from the message we give them in our dealings with them. Sometimes, corporal punishment says more about the state of mind of the person inflicting it than about their belief in its effects on the child.
Last year, I voted that corporal punishment should not return to maintained schools. I hold to that view. We are debating whether those schools in the independent sector that still use corporal punishment should be allowed to continue to do so merely because the parents pay a fee so that their children can go there. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) put the issue plainly, saying that, given how much money the parents pay, they should at least have the right to think that their children could be beaten by the teachers. That is a funny equation.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The issue is not the terminology of beating, but the level of chastisement that is given, with sensitivity and love. If parents are not entitled to take discipline into account when choosing a school, should they be able to take into account other factors, such as a school's religious denomination? Independent schools provide a range of choice for parents. The Minister should respect that.

Ms Morris: I am sorry that I gave way. It was a huge mistake. I shall make progress rapidly. In his original speech, the hon. Gentleman said something along the lines of, given the amount of money that the parents pay, that is almost the least that they could expect. He did not progress with the argument that, the more they pay, the greater the beating. That is the issue in deciding whether to extend the prohibition into the independent sector.
I can do no more than quote the chairman of the Independent Schools Council, Ian Beer, who said in the press release to which the hon. Member for Bath referred:
ISC schools have always regarded themselves as an integral part of the nation's education system".
He speaks on behalf of the independent sector. I am happy to take his word for the fact that that sector is part of the nation's education system. In my view, the rules that the House has approved for the vast majority of children who are educated in the maintained schools should also apply to those who are educated in the independent sector.
We have made it clear that Labour Members have a free vote on the subject, and must follow their consciences. My conscience tells me clearly that I should vote for one of the new clauses, but I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw his new clause and to support instead new clause 23, which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister referred to the debate a year ago, led by Mr. James Pawsey, who was then the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.

Mr. Andy King: He lost. He was beaten badly.

Mr. Foster: Tonight's debate has been much more measured than last year's, and I shall finish by making four brief points.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was measured, but in reply to his comments about our following Europe, I must explain that the reason for raising the fact that all other European countries have abolished corporal punishment—more than 200 years ago, in the case of Poland—was simply to give further evidence in support of the people who believe that it is not an effective form of punishment.
Child abuse has also been mentioned. In 1996, the national committee of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse said:
As a general proposition and on the weight of evidence, physical punishment is an unsatisfactory and, ultimately, ineffective way of improving children's behaviour".
That is what the House will decide tonight.
Thirdly, as a follow-up to my observation that we were completing unfinished business, hon. Members may be interested to know that the first attempt to persuade the House to abolish corporal punishment in schools in this country took place as long ago as 1669, when a "lively boy" presented a petition to Parliament on behalf of the children of this nation to protest against
that intolerable grievance our youth lie under, in the accustomed severities of the school discipline of this nation".
So many years since that petition was presented, I hope that tonight, at last, that lively boy's wishes will come true.
I hope that the following quotation from Elizabeth I's schoolmaster, Roger Ascham, will sum up the feeling of most Members:
Love is fitter than fear, gentleness better than beating, to bring up a child rightly in learning".
That, I think, is what the House believes.
I am convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley and the Minister that, although our new clause 21 would have achieved our purpose, new clause 23 would do so even more effectively. I therefore hope that the House will give me leave to withdraw our new clause, in the hope that there will be an opportunity to vote instead for new clause 23 and the various amendments consequential upon it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 23

ABOLITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS ETC.

'.—(1) For section 548 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be substituted—

"No right to give corporal punishment

548.—(1) Corporal punishment given by, or on the authority of, a member of staff to a child—
(a) for whom education is provided, at any school, or
(b) for whom education is provided, otherwise than at school, under any arrangements made by a local education authority, or
(c) for whom specified nursery education is provided otherwise than at school,
cannot be justified in any proceedings on the ground that it was given in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of staff by virtue of his position as such.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to corporal punishment so given to a child at any time, whether at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or elsewhere.

(3) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this section.

(4) Any reference to giving corporal punishment to a child is to doing anything for the purpose of punishing that child (whether or not there are other reasons for doing it) which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery.

(5) However, corporal punishment shall not be taken to be given to a child by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting—
(a) an immediate danger of personal injury to, or
(b) an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the child himself).

(6) "Member of staff', in relation to the child concerned, means—
(a) any person who works as a teacher at the school or other place at which education is provided for the child, or
(b) any other person who (whether in connection with the provision of education for the child or otherwise)—
(i) works at that school or place, or
(ii) otherwise provides his services there (whether or not for payment),
and has lawful control or charge of the child.

(7) "Child" (except in subsection (8)) means a person under the age of 18.

(8) "Specified nursery education" means full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age which is provided—


(a) by a local education authority; or
(b) by any other person—
(i) who is (or is to be) in receipt of financial assistance given by such an authority and whose provision of nursery education is taken into account by the authority in formulating proposals for the purposes of section 110(2)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or
(ii) who is (or is to be) in receipt of grants under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996; or
(c) (otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)) in any educational institution which would fall within section 4(1) above (definition of "school") but for the fact that it provides part-time, rather than full-time, primary education."
(2) The following provisions of the Education Act 1996, namely—
(a) section 549 (interpretation of section 548), and
(b) section 550 (no avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school etc.), shall cease to have effect.'.—[Kali Mountford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 15.

Division No. 228]
[5.38 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coleman, Iain


Allan, Richard
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corston, Ms Jean


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darvill, Keith


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dawson, Hilton


Brand, Dr Peter
Donohoe, Brian H


Breed, Colin
Doran, Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw


Browne, Desmond
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burstow, Paul
Galloway, George


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Canavan, Dennis
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Norman A


Caplin, Ivor
Golding, Mrs Llin


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr Lynda
Harris, Dr Evan


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harvey, Nick


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)





Hepburn, Stephen
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Öpik, Lembit


Hill, Keith
Pearson, Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Plaskitt, James


Home Robertson, John
Pollard, Kerry


Hope, Phil
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prosser, Gwyn


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rapson, Syd


Hurst, Alan
Rendel, David


Hutton, John
Rooney, Terry


Iddon, Dr Brian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jamieson, David
Rowlands, Ted


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Roy, Frank


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jones, Ms Jenny
Savidge, Malcolm


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sheerman, Barry


Keetch, Paul
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kemp, Fraser
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kidney, David
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Soley, Clive


Lansley, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Laxton, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


Lepper, David
Stoate, Dr Howard


Levitt, Tom
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Stringer, Graham


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Stunell, Andrew


Lock, David
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McCabe, Steve
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


McDonagh, Siobhain
(Dewsbury)


McDonnell, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McFall, John
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McIsaac, Shona
Timms, Stephen



McNulty, Tony
Tipping, Paddy


MacShane, Denis
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mactaggart,.Fiona
Touhig, Don


Madle, Sir David
Trickett, Jon


Marek, Dr John
Truswell, Paul


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tyler, Paul


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Watts, David


Miller, Andrew
Webb, Steve


Moffatt, Laura
White, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Willis, Phil


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wills, Michael


Mountford, Kali
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Mudie, George
Wise, Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wray, James


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Nicholls, Patrick



Norris, Dan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oaten, Mark
Mr. Adrian Sanders and Helen Jones.


O'Hara, Eddie





NOES


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David






Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr.Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Mr.Andrew Robathan.


Swayne, Desmond



Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 109

EARLY YEARS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 80, line 20, at end insert
'(2A) In Wales, the partnership shall have regard to the need for Welsh-medium nursery education to be accessible to all pupils.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 124, in clause 110, page 80, line 43, after 'and,' insert—
'(aa) a statement of proposals, which sets out the authority's proposals for providing nursery education for children who have attained the age of three years.'.

Mr. Dafis: The way in which the provisions in part V are implemented in Wales will be of momentous importance to the Welsh language and to the prospects of creating a truly effective bilingual society—an aim that has overwhelming popular support in Wales.
The growth of Welsh-medium education over the past 30 years has been built to a large extent on the foundation laid by nursery education provided substantially by the voluntary nursery schools movement, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. A survey by the Welsh Language Board showed that 50 per cent. of parents would send children to Welsh-medium nursery schools if such provision were available.
It is vital that the expansion now proposed in publicly funded nursery education makes it possible to build on what has been achieved. That depends on partnership between LEAs and the voluntary sector and on accessibility—not just availability—of Welsh-medium provision.
Ironically, there is a danger that accessibility will be reduced by the expansion in the state sector. That issue was raised previously with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and I had hoped that he would be here to give me some unequivocal assurances that the right thing would be done.
Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin nursery groups are often small and are located in communities and close to homes. Welsh-medium primary schools in areas such as the valleys of the south-east are fewer in number than other schools and, therefore, further from pupils' homes. If primary schools provide nursery education directly, the danger is that existing groups will become unviable.
Parents would be understandably unhappy about sending three to four-year-olds the greater distance to Welsh-medium primary schools and would send them to English-medium schools instead, so what would seem on the surface to be an expansion of provision in Welsh-medium education in maintained schools could lead to reduced accessibility and a reduction in the number of pupils entering the Welsh-medium system.
Some LEAs might see that as an opportunity to solve what some of them would regard as the problem of meeting increasing demand for Welsh-medium education and, at the same time, to fill some of the empty places in English-medium schools. Places are scarce in the Welsh sector.
That problem can be prevented if the Secretary of State for Wales, and, from June 1999, the National Assembly for Wales, ensure that early years development plans build in the accessibility and availability of Welsh-medium provision.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Liberal Democrats that this is a vital consideration in ensuring that Welsh culture has equal status in a Wales with its own assembly?

Mr. Dafis: The Liberal Democrats are in the forefront of thinking in these matters.
Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin must be accorded a key role in the process and be included in the partnerships established under the clause. LEAs preparing schemes under the Welsh Language Act 1993 are required to show how the language is to be treated equally with English, and I trust that the Welsh Language Board will ensure that accessibility in early years provision is a key consideration.
I am glad to know that each early years development plan is to be sent to the Welsh Language Board for comment. Its comments must carry weight with the Secretary of State, who will have ample powers under the Bill to ensure that the right policies are pursued at local level.
A few other matters arose from the guidelines on early years education issued recently by the Welsh Office. First, education and its integration with child care provision will be part of the Welsh Office's child care strategy. That will be the subject of substantial investment, so how will the Welsh language be safeguarded within that strategy? Obviously, that is of crucial significance.
Secondly, the guidelines stated that qualified early years teachers should be attached to each establishment that provides early years education. That provision is laudable, but how will it work in relation to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin nursery groups, each of which will not have a qualified early years teacher? That must be considered, as must a strategy to provide sufficient qualified Welsh-medium nursery teachers.
Thirdly, the guidelines refer to the development of training schemes and the use of grant for education support and training money for that purpose. How do the Government propose to ensure that Welsh-medium training is central to those schemes?
We have an opportunity to achieve major progress if we get early years provision right; however, the perils are also apparent. I look forward to having the Minister's assurance—I suppose that I will receive it not tonight, but at some future time—that the perils will be avoided and the opportunity taken.

Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) has had an opportunity to talk about a subject that is vital to people in Wales. I hope to give him some reassurance on the issues which he raised. I know that he


had a meeting just before Christmas with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and that, as a result, the Welsh Office guidance on early years education issued in January is unequivocal on that issue. It states that partnerships that are providing for early years places must take into account the need for Welsh-medium provision. My hon. Friend certainly thinks that that is much better left to guidance than put in the Bill, like many other aspects of guidance on that issue.
The fact that the provision is in the Welsh Office guidance that was issued in January should give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he has sought.

Mr. Dafis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 114

No RIGHT TO GIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT TO NURSERY PUPILS

Amendment made: No. 144, in page 83, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Clause 127

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 76, in page 92, line 40, at end insert—
'(3A) For the purposes of this Act references to disposing of land include references to—
(a) granting or disposing of any interest in land;
(b) entering into a contract to dispose of land or to grant or dispose of any such interest; and
(c) granting an option to purchase any land or any such interest.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 128

INDEX

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 94, line 37, at end insert—

'new school (in Chapter IV of Part II)
section 43(4)'.

No. 2, in page 95, line 20, at end insert—


'school opening date
section (Arrangements for governments of new school£(9)'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 29

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 87, in page 205, line 25, at end insert—

'Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c.39)

.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (supply of goods and services by local authorities to public bodies) "public body" shall include any Education Action Forum established in an education action zone.

(2) The provision in sub-paragraph (1) shall have effect as if made by an Order under section 1(5) of that Act (power to provide that a person shall be a public body for the purposes of the Act).

(3) An order under section 1(5) may accordingly vary or revoke the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply to an Education Action Forum specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Amendment made: No. 171, in page 205, line 25, at end insert—

'Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)
In section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (saving for right of parents etc. to administer corporal punishment), for "teacher, or other person" substitute "or (subject to section 548 of the Education Act 1996) any other person,".'.—[Kali Mounord.]

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 209, line 16, at end insert—
'. In section 3 of the Charities Act 1993 (the register of charities), after subsection (5) insert—
(5A) In subsection (5) above—
(a) paragraph (a) shall be read as referring also to any school to which section 21(8)(a) or (b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 applies, and
(b) paragraph (b) shall be read as referring also to any foundation to which section 21(9A) of that Act applies;
but an order of the Commissioners, or regulations made by the Secretary of State, may provide that section 21(9A) of that Act shall cease to apply to any such foundation as is mentioned in that provision or to any such foundation of a description specified in the order or regulations." '.

No. 75, in page 209, line 17, leave out 'the Charities Act 1993' and insert 'that Act'.

No. 83, in page 219, line 47, leave out from 'etc.)' to end of line 49 and insert—
'(a) in paragraph (a), for "county, voluntary, grant-maintained" substitute "community, foundation, voluntary"; and
(b) omit paragraph (b).'.

No. 28, in page 219, line 49, at end insert—

'.—(1) Section 519 (allowances for governors, etc.) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "travelling" to "section 115);" substitute "such allowances as may be prescribed to governors of—
(a) any community, foundation or voluntary school or community or foundation special school which does not have a delegated budget (within the meaning of Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998);".

(3) In subsection (3) for "travelling and subsistence allowances" substitute "such allowances as may be prescribed".

(4) After subsection (6) add—
(7) Regulations may impose a limit on the amount which may be paid by way of any allowance under this section." '.

No. 78, in page 222, line 40, at end insert—
'. In section 543 (relaxation of prescribed standards in special cases)—
(a) in subsection (1), for "or (4)" substitute ", (4) or (4A)"; and
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
(4A) This subsection applies, in relation to any playing fields used by the school for the purposes of the school, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that, having regard to other facilities for physical education available to the school, it would be unreasonable to require conformity with any prescribed requirement relating to playing fields.


In this subsection "playing fields" has the same meaning as in section (Control of disposals or changing use of school playing fields) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (control of disposals or changing use of school playing fields)."—[Mr. Byers.]

Amendment made: No. 172, in page 223, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert
'Omit sections 549 and 550 (provisions about corporal punishment).'.—[Kali Mountford.]

Schedule 30

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 235, line 8, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 518(b).'.—
[Mr. Byers.]

Amendments made: No. 173, in page 235, column 3, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert 'Sections 549 and 550.'

No. 174, in page 237, line 54, at end insert—


'1997 c. 59.
Education (Schools) Act 1997
Section 6(1)
In section 7, in subsection (3)(a) "section 6(1)", and in subsection (4)(a) "(1) and".'.—
[Kali MounYbrd.]

Schedule 31

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 239, line 46, at end add—

'6.—(1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) at any time before the appointed day, whether before or after the date on which this Act is passed, any trustees (being entitled to do so) have given to the governing body of a former voluntary school a notice which is effective to terminate, on or after that day, the school's occupation of any land held by the trustees for the purposes of the school; and
(b) the termination of the school's occupation of that land would have the result that it was not reasonably practicable for the school to continue to be conducted at its existing site.

(2) Paragraph 7A(2) of Schedule 22 shall apply in relation to the land to which such a notice relates as it applies in relation to the land to which a notice falling within section 29(11) relates.

(3) Section 29(13) and (14) shall apply, with any necessary modifications, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) as they apply for the purposes of section 29(11)(b).

(4) In this paragraph "former voluntary school" means—
(a) any voluntary school, or
(b) any grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school immediately before becoming grant-maintained or was established by promoters,

within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, which on the appointed day becomes a foundation or voluntary school within the meaning of this Act; and "the purposes of the school" has the meaning given by section 29(15).'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It gives me great pleasure to move Third Reading. I thank my ministerial team, the Whips and the parliamentary private secretaries, and all those who have stayed for the last 14 hours who are with us in being committed to making the Bill a reality.
The Bill is about standards and opportunity, ranging from the early years development plans, to lowering class sizes, to the education development plans for local authorities, to a new framework to reunite the education system, to pull school together with school, to unite partnerships between LEAs and schools, parents and governors in lifting standards across Britain. It gives me great pleasure as the clock strikes 6 o'clock to move that we at last send the Bill to the House of Lords so that we can give every child in Britain the opportunity that they deserve.

6 am

Mr. Dorrell: I shall be as brief as the Secretary of State. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her support during the passage of the Bill. I thank hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who acted as Whip, and my hon. Friends who served in Committee and who stayed in the House this evening. I also thank the officers and staff of the House of Commons for supporting us through a long sitting.
We shall not support Third Reading. The Secretary of State has said times without number, both inside the House and outside, that his priority is standards, not structures. However, the Bill damages key structures which deliver the standards that we all want in our schools. It is committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools and to an overly restrictive control on class sizes which will reduce choice for parents with children in infants schools. It establishes a one-way ratchet for the abolition of successful grammar schools.
Earlier, the Government sustained yet again their view that we should continue to have a division at the heart of our school system between the independent sector and the maintained sector, a division which I believe continues to damage opportunities for many children. This is a bad Bill which should not command a majority in the House. We shall oppose its Third Reading.

Mr. Don Foster: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who has worked tirelessly with me in Committee and on Report.
We made it clear on Second Reading that, like the Government, we were interested in raising standards in our schools and that the Bill contained many measures that had our full support and many exciting ideas. We also made it clear that we disagreed with the Government about the appropriate way forward on certain aspects. We discussed those issues in Committee and on Report. On some, we received assurances from the Government about our concerns; on others, we continue to believe that the Government are not necessarily pursuing the most effective way forward. Broadly speaking, because there are so many measures that we support, and because we are keen to show our desire to be part of the process of moving forward to raise standards in our schools, we will certainly vote for Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 19.

Division No. 229]
[6.3 am


AYES


Allan, Richard
Godman, Norman A


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Grogan, John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Barron, Kevin
Hanson, David


Bayley, Hugh
Harris, Dr Evan


Bennett, Andrew F
Harvey, Nick


Berry, Roger
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Blackman, Liz
Healey, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Henderson, lvan (Harwich)


Blizzard, Bob
Hepburn, Stephen


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Hill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hinchliffe, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Hoey, Kate


Breed, Colin
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hope, Phil


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Browne, Desmond
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hurst, Alan


Burden, Richard
Hutton, John


Burgon, Colin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Burstow, Paul
Jamieson, David


Byers, Stephen
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Canavan, Dennis
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Caplin, Ivor
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Casale, Roger
Jones, Ms Jenny


Caton, Martin
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Chaytor, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Keeble, Ms Sally


Clapham, Michael
Keetch, Paul


Clark, Dr Lynda
Kemp, Fraser


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Clelland, David
Kidney, David


Coaker, Vernon
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Coffey, Ms Ann
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Colman, Tony
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Connarty, Michael
Laxton, Bob


Cooper, Yvette
Lepper, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Levitt, Tom


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Cox, Tom
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lock, David


Cummings, John
McCabe, Steve


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McDonagh, Siobhain


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McDonnell, John


Dalyell, Tam
McFall, John


Darvill, Keith
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McIsaac, Shona


Davidson, Ian
McNulty, Tony


Dawson, Hilton
MacShane, Denis


Donohoe, Brian H
Mactaggart, Fiona


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Dowd, Jim
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Edwards, Huw
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Moffatt, Laura


Galloway, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gapes, Mike
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)





Mountford, Kali
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stunell, Andrew


Norris, Dan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


O'Hara, Eddie
(Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Öpik, Lembit
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Trickett, Jon


Purchase, Ken
Truswell, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rendel, David
Tyler, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Watts, David


Roy, Frank
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
White, Brian


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Wills, Michael


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wise, Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Woolas, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wray, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns)
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Soley, Clive





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browninq, Mrs Anqela
Nicholls, Patrick



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Evans, Nigel



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jenkin, Bernard
Sir David Madel and Mr. John Whittingdale.


Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Special Grant Report (No. 33): Community Care Special Grants for 1998–99 (HC 534), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Farming (Ribble Valley)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Nigel Evans: I have waited a long time to make this speech. It is important, and I have an important point to make at the start. I see that the Minister who will respond to the debate is not a Farming Minister. At about midnight, I was told that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), the junior Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, would answer my debate on farming. I thought that that was especially odd, but later I was told that I was not even to be blessed with someone from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I do not blame the Minister for School Standards, the junior Minister who is responding to the debate this morning, because obviously he has had this put upon him, but, whereas the environment was somewhat removed from farming, which is the subject of my debate, education is even further removed. The Government must explain themselves.
I know that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has a specific problem, and I fully accept that he cannot be with us today, but there are other Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture and, as far as I know, in the five years when the Conservatives were in government when I was a Member of Parliament, we never once at an Adjournment debate put up a Minister who was not associated with the subject matter that was being discussed. The Government have a duty to tell the House why they have put up someone from the Department for Education and Employment to answer a debate on farming. What they have done tonight is contemptuous of the farmers of Ribble Valley and of this country, and a contempt of the House.
We need to get answers on that, but I shall continue with my speech and trust that someone from the Ministry of Agriculture will read it at some stage, and that we shall receive a proper response to the debate.
I suspect that Radio 4 could do no better than to scrap what it had planned for its "Farming Today" programme and broadcast what I have to say, so that people may listen to the problems of the fanners of Ribble Valley, which are replicated throughout the country, and can witness the fact that the Government think so little of farmers' problems that they cannot be bothered to put up a Minister who is available to respond to the problems of farmers in Ribble Valley.
Earlier this month, I challenged the Minister of Agriculture to come to Ribble Valley, to visit a farmer in Samlesbury and talk to the farmer's wife, Cath Wright, who had telephoned me that day and spoken about the plight of her husband, and of all the other farmers in the Samlesbury area. She said:
I don't think the Minister is aware of the amount of effort we put in for little return. My husband regularly ploughs at night because he doesn't have the time during the day and often works a 90-hour week. The Minister is trying to turn a blind eye to our problems. That's why he will not come!
I can tell the Minister, through the Minister for School Standards, that Cath Wright still extends that invitation—that she would like the Minister of Agriculture to visit her farm in Samlesbury, to see the problems that she is experiencing there.
Today is also poignant because it was the day that a delegation of 30 people from this country involved in farming, including a constituent of mine who is chairman of the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers Union, Peter Stott, went to Brussels to meet the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Franz Fischler; Commissioner Leon Brittan; Commissioner Neil Kinnock; and several MEPs concerned with farming, so that they could bring directly to Brussels the problems experienced in farming.
The one thing that the members of the delegation wanted was a lifting of the beef ban in this country. They wanted to ensure that they were getting the same treatment as the rest of Europe. It is important to note that, in the easing of the beef ban in Northern Ireland, even with all the scientific evidence that supported the lifting of that ban, Germany and Belgium still voted against us, and Luxembourg and Spain abstained. Science has been neglected for too long. Some countries were using all sorts of excuses to ensure that protection was in place for their own industries while British farming was being damaged.
The excellent recent Agriculture Select Committee report stated:
Ironically, while the slaughter and other measures introduced to eradicate BSE from the British herd have raised UK beef hygiene standards to exemplary levels, inevitably they have reduced the volumes of the domestic product and opened up the UK market to some beef imports produced to less exacting hygiene standards.
That will include beef from European Union countries that have refused to acknowledge the action taken by the Conservative Government, and even by this Labour Government, to ensure that we have traceability of stock and eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Of course, it is not just the European Union, but other countries. I asked the Library for recent figures for Argentina, for example, which show that, including corned beef, £39 million-worth of beef came into this country from Argentina in 1997. Indeed, imports generally were up 18 per cent. in 1997 on the year before.
While we welcome the overdue easing of the ban in Northern Ireland, we need to know when the Minister of Agriculture will achieve the timetabled lifting of the ban in the remainder of the United Kingdom. After all, British beef is among the safest in the world. For purely political reasons on the part of our competitors, my farmers are suffering. British farmers are seeing their markets being destroyed.
I want to touch on a number of problems facing the farming industry in Ribble Valley, which is not unique by any stretch of the imagination. It is a micro-picture of what is happening elsewhere. The National Farmers Union county chairman wrote to me in December saying:
I scarcely need to tell you about the mood of British farmers at the present time. You will have understood from media reports just how angry the mood is—the industry is facing a bleak future if nothing is done to address the extremely serious economic situation reflected in the Government's 1997 farm incomes. These show a 47 per cent. drop in real terms in just one year.
So what has got Ribble Valley farmers so angry? I thought I would go through some of the anecdotal evidence from the farmers, so that the Minister will be able, at some stage, to respond to it. Paul Kenny, one of

my farmers from Slaidburn, has 60 dairy cows. He is facing a veterinary bill this month of £600. Because the farmers care about their animals, they do not turn their backs when some of their animals are ill. Even though he cannot afford the £600, he will have to pay that amount.
Two years ago, Paul Kenny was getting 26p a litre for his milk; now, it is 19p a litre, and he has been told that next year it is likely to go down to 16p a litre. What he resents more than anything is that, because of the way in which the quota is arranged, he cannot produce enough to make his farm viable. I was talking to another farmer today, who has poured 6,000 litres down a hole in his farm because his quota does not allow him to put that milk on the market. That is the sort of problem that our farmers are facing.
Peter Stott, whom I mentioned earlier, is a farmer. He says that the whole of farming is in total disarray and that the beef crisis is not over. Prices are as low today as they have ever been. Howard Blackburn, who works for Dugdales in Clitheroe—a feed merchant—says that in certain areas beef production is at a standstill. There is so little happening that it is laughable. There is talk now that farmers are making a negative profit, which is a euphemism for a loss. He told me that that has an enormous knock-on effect.
Farmers are not buying machinery for their farms and they are not buying stuff from other dealers, so there is less trade in the auction marts. There is a real danger of farmers going out of business and depopulation of the rural areas. We all know the dangers of depopulation. Rural schools and shops will close and the rural way of life will go. Howard Blackburn says that banks are looking seriously at the borrowings of some farmers. In the summer, they give out umbrellas; when it is winter, they take them away. That is exactly what they are doing. He also complained about the price that people are getting for their milk.
Harry Backhouse, a farmer in Bashall Eaves, talked about the price that farmers are now getting for their sheep. It is half what it was a year ago, when they were getting £60. They are now getting £30 to £32. Some cast sheep are fetching prices of less then £30.
Steve Fawcett, who works for the National Farmers Union in Clitheroe, said that many farmers who own their farms will not risk going bust—they just get very poor. They do not want to do anything other than farm, but because of the low incomes that they are now receiving, they have become poverty-stricken.
Stuart Kerr, one of my butchers from Clitheroe, spoke about his pride in the people of Ribble Valley, who have stayed loyal during the beef crisis. They have gone to him and carried on buying beef because they do not believe the rubbish that they have read in some of the papers and all the nonsense that Professor Richard Lacey churns out, frightening people needlessly.
John Swingler, who works at the Clitheroe auction mart, made it clear to me that the beef crisis is certainly not over. He said that the trade simply is not there. One farmer to whom he spoke the other day had to get two new tyres for his tractor. That cost him three cull cows, because he was getting £300 for each cull cow and the tyres cost £900.
John Swingler also complained about the price of the sheep. He said that one man aged 30 who is a farmer has had to supplement his income by going to work in another


industry in Clitheroe. That means that he must farm when he has finished his work in the industry. Farmers now need two jobs to earn a living. John Swingler recently had a meeting to discuss the problems in farming and how farmers could present their produce better. More than 300 local farmers attended the meeting.
I spoke to Nick Capstick this evening. He is a fifth-generation fanner, only 34 years old. Council tax in Ribble Valley is going up 12 per cent. this year—that is four times the rate of inflation—yet he tells me that he put two cows into auction the other day and got only £294 each for them. Nick has four children to look after. His income has gone down dramatically.
How will a farmer like Nick—in his 30s, with four children and a wife to keep—make a living? He used to employ his sister to help milking the cows, but he can no longer afford to employ her, so he has to do the work himself. His situation is desperate. Nick was telling me about the problems caused by the increase in petrol prices. As a result of the Budget last week, he must pay 4.5p more on his petrol, on top of the 4p rise in July. Moreover, there is a tremendous knock-on effect for anyone who distributes goods to the farms.
There have been enormous problems in farming in Ribble Valley. We know about the cuts in the hill livestock compensatory allowance. Our Government gave £60 million to those areas, and it is being clawed back. We know that the Government got well over £100 million in the EU premium underspend, yet that did not go back into farming—the money has gone elsewhere. We know the problem of beef on the bone and the reaction that that has produced. There are people in Ribble Valley who want to buy beef on the bone, but they are not allowed to do so.
The cuts in the over-30-months scheme when the deadweight limits were introduced mean that the farmers are getting far less for the cattle when they take them to market. Green-top milk is another issue. Simonstone dairyman Alan Picking said:
I have drunk raw milk all my life without incident and the Government should leave it alone.
Bryan Jackson from the Primrose dairy in Clitheroe said:
It's down to freedom of choice. If people want to drink unpasteurised milk, let them. Cigarettes and cars are far more dangerous.
I agree entirely with him.
There is also the green pound and the strengthening of sterling. The Farmers Guardian reports how the strong pound is slowing the UK farming recovery. The article talks about the problems that farmers are facing because of the strengthening pound. Cheap imports are entering the United Kingdom, and our fanners are unable to compete—because of the five interest rate rises that have further increased the pound's value. What does the Minister think has happened to the pound since the Budget? It has gone up, making the farmers' job all that more difficult.
We also want the Government to do much more to ensure that local authorities and hospitals source locally and buy British meat, particularly beef, and that the armed forces are encouraged to buy much more British beef.
I have anecdotally described some of the problems and aspects of the daily crisis faced by people involved in farming in Ribble Valley. We want the Government to

take action to help farmers with the problems that I have described. Fanners do not need more words; they need help.
The matters with which farmers most require help are the strong pound and timetabling, to ensure that not only Northern Ireland, but Scotland, England and Wales will see light at the end of the tunnel. Farmers will have to prove to their bank managers that there is some light. They want to farm, Minister—please give them the opportunity to do so.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this debate on a most important issue. I should also like to address the issue that he raised at the beginning of his speech—why I, as a Minister in the Department for Education and Employment, will reply to the debate. As a Minister of State, I shall reply on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman knows why the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture was unable to attend the debate, and he should be aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is representing the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council meeting. It is very important that he discharges those specific responsibilities. I therefore have the opportunity, as a Minister of State, to reply on behalf of the Government to the serious points that have been raised in the debate.
The Government are not turning a blind eye to the constituents mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—whether Cath Wright or the others he mentioned—but are very mindful of the difficulties and problems that they face. However, the difficulties and problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman did not suddenly emerge on 2 May 1997; many of them are legacies that we inherited from the previous Administration. We are developing policies to address and alleviate the issues and concerns that were mentioned in the debate.
The Government are aware that agriculture is currently going through a difficult time, and there is no doubt that the past year has been a bad time for farm incomes generally and for the livestock sector particularly. Total farming income has fallen in 1997, although it is true that some sectors have fared far better than others. The fall in incomes for the general cropping sector, for example, has been less marked than that for mixed farms or for lowland cattle or sheep farms.
The principal cause of the across-the-board fall in incomes has been the lower prices attracted by all major commodities. Furthermore, as the hon. Gentleman said, sterling's relative strength throughout 1997 has clearly had an effect on the prices that can be achieved by United Kingdom producers.
While sterling remains at its current high levels, and with structural surpluses in most agricultural sectors not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe generally, prospects—certainly in the short term—for increased commodity prices and therefore for improved incomes are not good. However, it is worth pointing out that the longer-term prospects for farmers are perhaps not as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman has said and as other Opposition Members have been very keen to portray. Although, as I said, incomes fell in 1997, that followed some very good years for fanning. Incomes rose steadily


from 1990 onwards, rising to a peak in 1995. During that time, sterling was relatively weak, and commodity prices were firm.
In general, that was a good period for the farm industry generally although, clearly, some sectors experienced difficulties throughout the 1990s, and the Government are very mindful of that. Because of the increase in farm incomes that was achieved in the 1990s, business debts could be repaid and farmers could reinvest for the future. As a result, the level of debt experienced in the agricultural sector as a whole is low compared with that in other industries. There is good reason to believe that farmers will come through the present difficult period, although the Government are not complacent about the problems facing farmers.
I deal now with how the Government will tackle farmers' concerns, and why we believe that it is important to take a rational, long-term view of the pressures and needs of the farming industry. Many hon. Members, including Conservatives, have demanded that the Government act to secure the aid available under the European Union's agrimonetary arrangements to offset the strength of the pound. In order to mitigate the effects on farmers' incomes, the argument has been that we need to take that action. It is argued—the hon. Gentleman touched on this point—that we should draw on European Union funds for that purpose. It is also argued that the money is there and that the Government should not ignore the availability of such funds. Those demands ignore several key issues and questions, which have wider implications for the public purse and for taxpayers.
First, those demands ignore the substantial protection that the agrimonetary arrangements automatically give to the value of the common agricultural policy payments against the consequences of the strength of sterling. The rules delay green-rate revaluations, which reduce the value of CAP payments, but allow devaluations, which will increase them, to take effect almost immediately. CAP payments made direct to UK farmers—around 60 per cent. of UK CAP spending—will receive protection under the European Union rules to the tune of around £400 million over two years. That is a considerable contribution by way of protection to the farming industry.
Secondly, such demands ignore the fact that aid has significant implications for public expenditure. European Union rules would allow the UK to pay farmers up to £690 million spread over three years. Up to half that total could be reclaimed from the European Union budget. In practice, however, that compensation is not simply ours for the taking.
As hon. Members will know, the operation of the UK rebate from the European Union budget—a rebate that was negotiated by Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister—means that even paying the EU-reimbursed element of the aid carries significant public expenditure implications for the UK. Broadly speaking, the UK Exchequer would bear around 71 per cent. of the costs of EU-reimbursed aid. Most of the money that we would be spending would be not the European Union's money but the UK taxpayers'. The argument is perhaps not as simple as it is made out to be.
It is also worth bearing it in mind that the legal basis for agrimonetary compensation payments for currency revaluation has been in place since April 1997. In fact, it was introduced in the dying days of the previous Government. Had they wished to do so, the Government could have begun to make payments then, but—despite pressure from farmers' organisations using the same arguments that we have heard today—no such compensation was provided.

Sir Robert Smith: The Minister ought to accept that two wrongs do not make a right. The farmers are genuinely concerned not just about where the money is coming from, but about the fact that other European countries are being subsidised to the full.

Mr. Byers: As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, in the case of some sectors of the United Kingdom farming industry that are under particular pressure, we have been prepared to use European Union support. The Government's policy has been to provide support where it has seemed to be in the national interest. It is worth noting that the previous Government voted to abolish the compensation mechanism completely when it was established at the Agriculture Council meeting last March. That demonstrates their intent all too clearly.
As I have said, the present Government recognise that some sectors are more affected than others by the current situation—which is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). That is why, even against a background of tight public expenditure control, we decided to provide some aid for the beef and sheep sectors. In structural terms, those sectors find it most difficult to absorb and adjust to the changes in income generated by green-rate revaluations.
The measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 3 February will deliver £72.5 million to the specialist beef sector, in the form of payments made on the basis of eligibility for the 1996 suckler cow premium scheme. The benefits of focusing aid on specialist producers, who have the least flexibility to adapt to revaluation-derived falls in income, should feed through to other parts of the sector—by, for example, helping to ensure a supply of reasonably priced calves to calf finishers, thereby improving finishers' gross margins. We are also making £12.5 million available to the sheepmeat sector. That is targeted aid to the tune of £85 million.
Livestock farmers will receive £1 billion in direct subsidy this year. The Government have also said that they will fund the initial costs of the new cattle-tracing system, and the implementation of specified risk material controls. That will save the industry £70 million. It is clear that farmers are receiving a great deal of support from the taxpayer. That aid is in addition to nearly £1.7 billion of support for the livestock sector as a whole in 1997–98. It is a significant sum in public expenditure terms, by any standards. Total UK expenditure on the common agricultural policy will be—3 billion this year.
We acknowledge that other sectors also face difficulties. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley specifically mentioned the dairy sector, which I know has particular significance in his constituency. He referred to


the difficulties caused by the fall in the price of milk. The price has dropped dramatically over the past 18 months—albeit, perhaps, from very high levels—not only because of the strong pound, but because of strong competition between buyers and sellers. Such competition, however, has been an inevitable consequence of the deregulation of the UK milk market, which the previous Government introduced.
It remains the case that, over the years, dairy farming has been relatively profitable compared with other sectors. The continued strong demand for milk quota, for lease or

for purchase, indicates that there are plenty of producers in the dairy sector who feel that an adequate return can still be gained from dairy farming.
Apart from the effects of a strong currency, the farm incomes problem in the UK has highlighted a more general problem in the European Union—the problem of a long-term structural surplus in agricultural production. The Government recognize—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Seven o'clock.